Preamble

The House met at half-past Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — MURDER (ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 24th March.]

[Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY FOR MURDER.)

Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 5, after "murder" insert:
except a person previously convicted of murder who shall murder again ".—[Mr. Scott- Hopkins.]

Question against proposed. That those words be there inserted.

10.35 a.m.

Sir Stephen McAdden: It will be within the recollection of the Committee that at our last sitting my hon. Friends the Members for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson), Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) and Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) spoke strongly in support of the Amendments. Their arguments were fortified by speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), who, although they were professed abolitionists, nevertheless thought that serious consideration should be given to the Amendments.
Last week, we had the opportunity of hearing the views of the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), and the right hon. Lady the Minister of State, Home Office, who was in charge of the Government's exposition of the case.

Both urged rejection of the Amendments and that consideration given to them should be fairly short because they felt that they were at variance with a principle which, they maintained, the House had established on Second Reading. The views advanced by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne were not necessarily the reasons which he gave for a majority decision being taken on the Bill. He gave one reason which, I suppose, enjoys wide acceptance, namely, that there was objection to what he called the beastly ritual of the death penalty. Then he went on to argue that the fact that a majority decision had been taken by the House more or less settled the issue.
I am sure that it is not the generally held view of hon. Members that a majority decision, once taken, is for ever binding on us. Nor would it seem to be reasonable to advance that as the main argument for the rejection of these Amendments. It is not unknown for majority decisions to be resisted and eventually overcome. Many hon. Members opposite will remember a majority decision which was taken in a different context. Very rightly, those who were aggrieved by it decided to fight, fight and fight again and eventually the decision was reversed. Therefore, majority decisions are not necessarily binding. Nevertheless, consideration obviously must be given to whether this argument by itself is the only one which can be adduced in rebuttal of the very persuasive arguments advanced by my colleagues.
I detected in the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne two main trends of argument in rebuttal of the Amendments, apart altogether from the general principle. He argued that, on the whole, murderers, once caught, were well behaved. I do not find this remarkable. If a man has been convicted of murder, and has been lucky enough to escape the death penalty, I should think that he would be very well behaved for the rest of his life as long as he was under supervision in gaol, because he would realise that his only chance of entering into a free life again would be to be on his very best behaviour once we had succeeded in catching him when committing his first crime of violence. I therefore do not find this surprising.
Then the hon. Gentleman went on to argue that it would be wrong to draw a


distinction, as the Amendment seeks to do, between a murderer committing a second murder and somebody who previously had never committed one but who committed one within the terms of the Amendment. That is an ingenious and interesting argument.
If I understood the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne correctly, he argued that murders were not committed by professional criminals and that although professional criminals have gone in for crimes of violence and bestiality, which naturally arouse indignation, they have not so far committed murder. I wonder whether, in the hon. Member's argument, it would be wrong to draw a distinction between the punishment of a murderer and the punishment of a violent criminal committing his first murder. What has given the hon. Member reason to doubt that professional criminals will depart from their accepted practice of the past? Does the hon. Member now feel that, if the Bill goes through, professional criminals who hitherto have kept away from murder will be encouraged by the Bill, knowing that the penalty will not be much different whether they commit murder or not, to extend their violence to murder? If that is what the hon. Member feels, he should be able to give considerably more support to my hon. Friend's Amendment than has so far been the case.
It seems obvious from the hon. Member's argument that although violent criminals have always, or nearly always, stopped short of murder, his anxiety that they should not be unfairly treated, or treated advantageously, as a result of the Amendments seems to presuppose the fact that they may well change their habits in the future. This is one reason why hon. Members on this side, even those who are in favour of abolition, see an argument in recognising that if the Bill were to be passed unamended, it would result in an entirely different position from that which now obtains and that murderers who may in the past have been restrained from activities which we would all deplore, and violent criminals who have kept away from murder, might well be persuaded to enter this field knowing that the punishment will not be very serious.
Last week, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said:

Most murders are not committed by people with any previous record of crime at all, still less of violent crime. We are dealing with a group of people, as a class, who, individual by individual, have found themselves in circumstances which have compelled them to commit the greatest crime of all but who are in other respects people who have lived law abiding lives."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1965; Vol. 709, c. 508.]
It is because this is the greatest crime of all that so much feeling is felt on this side of the Committee among a large number of hon. Members that we should be extremely circumspect in the way in which we deal with it. We want to be sure that the penalties which are to prevail in the future for this worst crime of all will not be whittled away without some kind of safeguards being provided.
Surely we are right in taking the view that, although it may be argued that the existing law on murder has resulted in the creation of a large number of anomalies, with which the Committee might well wish to deal, we must be quite certain that we do not create even more anomalies by making murder a more attractive trade than it now is. That is why this reasonable and sensible Amendment of ours has been moved to ensure that if the House of Commons, in its wisdom—if it is its wisdom—has decided to remove the death penalty for murder, nevertheless there should be provision for retaining within our code punishment for those who are guilty of a second murder.
At a time like this, when hardly a week goes by without crimes of violence being committed every pay day, wage packets being snatched and people using firearms to pursue these crimes of violence, the Committee should be particularly careful not to resist Amendments which seek to inflict the capital penalty only for a second murder.
During our discussion last week, the Minister of State, Home Office was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor), who, I am sorry, is not in his place, who said to the hon. Lady:
I want to know, as a matter of practical policy, what happens to a man who commits a second murder. Is he put back in prison only to be released again after a while? Do we let him out to commit a third murder?
That seemed to me to be a perfectly reasonable question to ascertain what was envisaged. I am sorry to say that


the hon. Lady, who is always charming and usually helpful in these matters, replied:
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is asking what has happened in the past or what would happen in future under the Bill. But if it is the latter case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to make his contribution when we come to later Amendments." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1965; Vol. 709, c. 508, 527.]
10.45 a.m.
That did not seem to me to be the kind of information which my hon. Friend wanted. He wanted to know from the Government what were their ideas on the subject. One would have thought that somewhere in the hon. Lady's speech we might have had her views upon it. It is true that she went on to talk about how violent prisoners would be dealt with in future and said that a maximum security prison would be constructed in the Isle of Wight. That, of course, was some consolation, but the hon. Lady went on to say that it would not be ready for some years yet. I, with my simple mind, would have thought it much better to have got that maximum security prison actually constructed, and to have a period in which we saw how it worked and whether it was effective, before we eased the path of those who have a record of violence and who might to incited to commit murder if the Amendment is rejected.
In recent weeks, we have had experience of people breaking into prison to release violent criminals. I am sure that if in the course of that breaking-in they found themselves resisted, after the passage of the Bill in its unamended form, it is extremely likely that the methods which they would use to break into gaol and to release known convicts, criminals and murderers would be much worse than anything we have experienced so far.
Therefore, at a time such as this, when drugs are being so widely used by so many young people and by so many middle-aged and violent criminals, when every day we see the tactics of the strong-arm man being used in their most violent form, we should seriously consider restricting as far as possible all the incentives which now exist for people to commit murder.
While I am encouraged at the slow realisation which has dawned even upon the promoter of the Bill that its passage may well result in violent criminals departing from their well-known habits and that, having kept away from murder in the past, they may be persuaded to go in for it in future, that is an additional argument in support of my hon. Friend's Amendments. I very much hope that they will receive the earnest and sincere consideration of hon. Members who, as I said last week, for reasons best known to themselves, do not seem to represent public opinion.
When we have the extraordinary position that the whole of the party opposite, except one, is in favour of the Bill, I am not surprised if some hon. Members on this side are disappointed in that kind of reflection of public opinion, which, honestly, I cannot understand. I hope that the Home Secretary may be able to tell us what is this strange compelling thing that unites people, who from time to time are inclined to be contentious with each other on all kinds of other matters, to the extent that they have all come down on the same point of view with regard to capital punishment and have shown themselves to be completely out of touch with what is going on in the country.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Frank Soskice): When the Committee met last time I was challenged by an hon. Member, if I use his words correctly, to come out in the open. I am not conscious that I have concealed my views about this matter, but if I have not made them specifically plain let me try to remedy that defect.
I have listened to and read very carefully the speeches which have been addressed to the Committee in support of the Amendment. It seems to me that although the arguments were differently expressed, they had, broadly speaking, one common feature, and that was an anxiety about whether society would be properly protected from the violent criminal if the death penalty was abolished. It was differently put, but it seemed to me that that was the common feature of the arguments addressed to the Committee, and it may, I think will, be said that perhaps there has been some misconception amongst the public as to what is


likely to happen to murderers, and, in particular, to the most violent and evil-minded type of murderer if the death penalty is abolished.
If I have been in any way responsible for that misconception, I am sorry, and I must try to remove it. I have read again the speech that I made during the Second Reading of the Bill. I then carefully chose my words, and I hope that nothing that I then said was responsible for that misconception, but whether it was, or whether it was not, may I now try to remove it and say how, so long as I hold this office, I will think it my duty to try to exercise my discretion in dealing with prisoners who fall within the province of Section 27 of the Prisons Act, 1952, namely, those prisoners who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, and with regard to whom the Home Secretary has a discretion as to how long he will cause them to remain in prison.
May I go back to the beginning. In my speech, which I have reconsidered, and from which I do not think I would desire to resile in any way, I did at the outset make it plain that in my opinion the first duty, and the first necessity, was to protect society. That must come first. That must displace every other consideration, and it seems to me that it is the bounden duty of the Home Secretary of the day to see to it however he exercises his discretion that fundamental principle is safeguarded. I adhere to that, and, so long as I hold this office, in any decision that I make with regard to Section 27 of the Act, I will certainly put that first and foremost as the criterion by reference to which I exercise my discretion.
Having said that, within the limits of that exercise of discretion, obviously in individual cases there will arise a number of alternatives. In each case one has to weigh up the individual and try to consider, having regard to his character, his characteristics, his propensities, the likely effect on him of prolonged imprisonment, the possibility of returning him in due course to society as a useful, and may I add safe, member of society, what is appropriate in his case. I know that the Committee would agree with me about that; indeed, that is what the Statute, by implication at any rate, says.
I know, also, that whatever view right hon. and hon. Members take with regard to the Amendment they will all be agreed on this, that in this great country of ours we should endeavour always when it is possible to take the humane, and, I will not say kindly, but human, attitude, as distinct from an attitude which involves any unnecessary cruelty to any individual, however bestial he may be. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree upon that. Therefore, in exercising a discretion, one has to try to reconcile those general principles, always bearing in mind what is the first and foremost of them.
I then went on to say this, and I would, if I may, venture to inflict it on the Committee again:
One may have to deal with a sex murderer.
I simply took that as an example. My own view of a person who, for example, murders a child in a sexual outbreak is a person who, unless there is some extremely marked change which can be clearly diagnosed in him, is extremely dangerous to society, and one would have to consider very carefully before one ever let a man like that out again. I do not want to strike dismay into the mind of any persons whom that may affect who are at present in custody, but I must say that.
I went on to say:
One may have to deal with a murderer who, obviously, has inherent vicious propensities and of whom one has to say to oneself, albeit reluctantly, 'This man will aways be a danger and menace to society'. A man like that must be kept in confinement for a very long time—maybe even for the whole of his life, though that would be a conclusion which I know any Home Secretary would be most reluctant to reach.
I say "any Home Secretary", but I feel that any hon. Member of the Committee would be reluctant to reach that conclusion.

Mr. Peter Hordern: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us an assurance that there will be certain instances in which a prisoner will be kept in prison for the term of his natural life, and that in no circumstances whatever will he be allowed to leave prison? I say that for one reason because, as was mentioned last week, Peter Dunford is a prisoner who has committed murder twice. I do not wish the


Home Secretary to comment on this case, but it is clear that my vote on the Third Reading of the Bill will depend on the right hon. and learned Gentleman giving us an assurance that in certain cases there will be an absolute necessity to keep a man in prison for the term of his natural life.

Sir F. Soskice: I read what I said on Second Reading, which I meant, and still mean. I was talking about the man who was a permanent menace to society and I said that he
must be kept in confinement for a very long time—maybe even for the whole of his life, though that would be a conclusion which I know any Home Secretary would be most reluctant to reach."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1964; Vol. 704, c. 927.]
I say "any Home Secretary" but I include, and I feel the completest confidence in including, every hon. Member present in this Committee, every hon. Member who is not present, and the vast majority of the public.
The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) mentioned a prisoner. I hope that anything that I say today will not be thought by that prisoner, or by anybody who is concerned with him, to involve any conclusion with regard to his case. It depends on his future development. It would be terrible if anything said during this debate led any prisoner, any human being who is in custody, the responsibility for which at present devolves on me, to say to himself, "I have no hope of every regaining my future". It would be dreadful to say that.

Mr. Hordern: I was at great pains to make the point that the case I mentioned was not one on which I wanted a judgment. We are not sitting here as judge and jury.

Sir F. Soskice: The hon. Gentleman made that point. When I say that there may be cases—I hope very few—in which an extreme course of that sort will be the only course which can be adopted to protect society, it will have to be done. Everybody responsible will hate doing it. If it were my responsibility, I would take such a course with extreme reluctance and dislike. As what I say may be read by the prison population, I emphasise that what I say is not intended to apply to any person at present in prison.
11.0 a.m.
The case of each prisoner will be considered from time to time, as it is at present. So far as I am concerned, I shall examine most carefully the reports made on him and I would not wish it to go out from this Committee to the mind of any prisoner at present in custody that he has no hope. I am bound to say that some prisoners must realise that they have less hope. When my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) said that a great many persons who have committed murder are, shall I say, not necessary inherently evil, I think that the whole Committee would agree. A man may murder under the influence of sudden, almost uncontrollable, outbreak of jealousy, or fury. He may be a man of perfectly unblemished reputation until that time. He might be a man who has been subjected to years of domestic strain or to other misfortune. A man of that sort who suddenly gives way to such an uncontrollable outbreak has committed a terrible crime. It is the worst crime in the calendar.
Nevertheless, not only the courts, but the public and this House, would say that they would view a man of that sort in a much more indulgent light than the type of murderer referred to by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern)—the vicious, violent man who has no pity for man or beast and who will slay to promote his own ends. That is an entirely different person, and the whole point of Section 27 of the 1952 Act is to impose on the Secretary of State the duty of trying to distinguish between cases.
I know that we would all regard as the objective which we wish to try to accomplish to send people back, whatever their offence when it can be done consistently with the safety of society, to their friends and to their family to lead the rest of their lives as useful citizens in the community. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has pointed out that in a great many cases that happens now. One of my responsibilities is to study cases individually with regard to whom a question mark arises, "Should you let them out or should you not?" The night before last the House discussed an individual case. I had a difficult discretion to exercise then and many people think that I exercised my discretion wrongly. I feel


that it was perfectly right and I greatly hope that the result in that case may be that a citizen is regained for the the community.
When I express these views, and those who are like-minded with me express views of the sort that I am expressing, it does not mean to say that we think that the crime of murder is the sort of crime which could be glossed over. It is still the most terrible crime in the calendar, knowingly and purposefully to take away life from another human being. Of course it is.
May I digress to say this? Sometimes language is used, I think a little incautiously, by hon. Members engaged in this Committee, in a controversy which would seem to imply that nine years or 10 years is—I do not wish myself to exaggerate, as the language seems to suggest—something very light, something which any would-be criminal could contemplate with complete equanimity.
I hope that hon. Members will re-think that language. Nine or 10 years is a terrible punishment. In my respectful submission, to think that a person who is minded to commit an act of violence which may have a fatal conclusion will say to himself, "I have only nine or 10 years to be frightened of", is unrealistic. It is a terrible penalty in itself. It becomes more and more terrible when nine or 10 years may be 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15 years.
There may even be cases where people lose all hope of ever coming out of prison and it becomes more terrible. I ask the Committee not to take the view that nine or 10 years is—I do not wish to use exaggerated language—something which anybody may contemplate without being frightened of it. It is a terrible thing in itself.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, quite apart from the crime of murder, there are, as we can see every single day, a tremendous number of the criminal population who, quite frankly, undertake a crime for which they know the penalty in their case would be imprisonment for nine or 10 years, and it does not have the slightest effect upon them?

Sir F. Soskice: I have always thought that the real, shall I say, defect in our

arrangements is not that our penalties are not sufficiently severe, but that the person who is minded to commit a crime thinks to himself, "I shall escape. I shall get away with it." My own view is that if we had penalties which were even considerably less than those habitually inflicted by the courts now, if there was a much higher likelihood of conviction, a virtual certainty of apprehension, the level of crime would drop tremendously.
Since I have had my present responsibility I have concentrated a very large amount of my thinking and endeavour to trying to put the police in a better position to combat crime. The Committee knows that if one looks, for example, at the question of firearms—

The Chairman: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he must link his remarks to the two Amendments which the Committee is considering and which relate to the question of double murder.

Sir F. Soskice: I will certainly do so, Dr. King.
The relevance, such as it is, of my speech, consisted, I hope, in this, that I think that the anxiety, as I pointed out at the outset of my remarks, of a number of hon. Members who support the Amendment is that if one does not retain the extreme penalty in some cases society will be insufficiently protected. What I was endeavouring to assure the Committee about was that the punishment will, nevertheless, be very severe, and that it is quite wrong to think that the punishment will be only nine or 10 years' imprisonment. That is the relevance of it and I hope that you will think that is within order.
May I reinforce that remark again in an endeavour to remove public misconception which exists and remind the Committee that when one talks about persons being let out after nine or 10 years' imprisonment, generally they are persons who have been sentenced to death and reprieved. They have been reprieved because it was thought that in their cases there was a mitigating factor. It certainly does not follow at all that persons who have been sentenced to life imprisonment, with regard to whom


it is impossible to point to any mitigating factor, can have any expectation that they will meet with the same treatment or that they have only to consider the possibility of a term of nine or 10 years. Therefore, I hope that it will not be thought that nine or 10 years is anything like automatic. It is not. Penalties may be considerably longer.

Sir S. McAdden: I have been trying to follow the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman—which has been put courteously and clearly as is always the case—on the queston of a person who commits a crime of violence and is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of nine or 10 years. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, as I understood it, that a criminal is buoyed up by the hope that he will never be caught. Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman also admit that if the Bill, as drafted, becomes law, and a person knows that the penalty for trying to resist arrest if he shoots someone will be no worse than if he does not, he will be encouraged to commit violence?

Sir F. Soskice: With respect, I cannot accept that. I just do not believe that it is the case. I think that if a person was trying to resist arrest, and knew that the game was up and he was going to be caught, if he thought he was going to be sentenced to a fairly short term of imprisonment it would be a very great deterrent to him. The difficulty is that people think that they will get away with it.
In view of the volume of crime as it is at the moment, they have—I do not want to exaggerate—more ground to hope that they will escape. That is why I think that my prime duty is to see to it that that possibility is reduced to the absolute bare minimum. That is what I have been trying to do.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Is not the position slightly worse even than my hon. Friend suggested? If the potential criminal is faced with circumstances in which apprehension seems inevitable and he knows that his only chance of escaping is to take some action which will result in murder, would not his temptation, as my hon. Friend implied, be all the greater?

Sir F. Soskice: Looking at it from the point of view of the criminal, if he knows that his offence will be detected and will inevitably result in his being imprisoned—because the likelihood of his being apprehended is so strong that he has practically no chance of escape—that person is far more likely to say, "I cannot get away with it. Better not aggravate it by shooting my way out as well." His temptation would be—

Mr. William Yates: This is absolutely the fundamental point for those like myself who, for a long time, supported the abolitionists' case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is advancing the proposition that the greatest deterrent is police detection. Now we have a situation in which we are not certain that the detection is good enough. Secondly, if such a man is caught, the tendency will be, as in the last few months, to use a firearm—that is the way the criminal mind works—to avoid being caught.

Sir F. Soskice: I think exactly the opposite. If the likelihood of being caught is extremely high—

Mr. Yates: It is not at the moment.

Sir F. Soskice: That is why I am trying to improve it. I am trying to increase the likelihood and that is what I have been arguing, that the endeavour of the Government and my own endeavour will be to try to increase that likelihood and put the police in a better and better position. Suppose that I achieve a modest degree of success. If one looks at it through the eyes of a criminal who knows that he is about to be caught, he would far sooner be caught for an offence for which he might be imprisoned for three years than for an offence for which he might be imprisoned for 10 or 12 years. Therefore, the likelihood of his trying to shoot his way out would be reduced proportionately as the chances of his being apprehended increase.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: This relates to the question which I raised before, that of the prisoner who is doing a life sentence. I was told that he was doing it for raping a young girl. If he had murdered that young girl as well he could not have got more than


a life sentence. He might just as well have murdered her; he could not have been worse treated.

11.15 a.m.

Sir F. Soskice: I deplore discussing individual cases. In that case, a person was sentenced to life imprisonment for rape of a young person. If there is any discussion about that individual, I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the court which sentenced him for that offence thought that the circumstances were such that they should impose the maximum possible sentence which could be imposed, that is to say, life imprisonment. I shall say no more about that case.
I have tried to say what I thought was proper, if asked what my intentions would be and how I would exercise my discretion as long as I am responsible. On the other side of the Amendment, I would put the considerations which I would like the Committee to consider on the broad question. It has been said that if the Amendment is accepted it will be going against the general view which those hon. Members concerned expressed on the Second Reading of the Bill.
I would respectfully submit that this is a perfectly right argument and perfectly rightly put in that form. I would seek to reinforce that consideration in this way. When we were considering the Homicide Act, we were trying to do exactly the same thing. We started from the general proposition that the death sentence was something which was—I do not want to use superlative adjectives—out of accord with modern thinking with regard to what penalties society should inflict. Some people have used very strong adjectives about it. I hold a very strong view about it and think that those adjectives are appropriate, but I shall not repeat them.
What we did in 1957, in effect, was to pick out those types of murder of which it could be said that they were particularly dangerous to society or that they were, for some reason, types of murder which particularly call for the supreme penalty. That is what we were trying to do. I would submit that those who think that this Amendment ought to be introduced to the Bill are retracing precisely those steps. We did not succeed when we put the Homicide Act on

the Statute Book, just because it is virtually impossible to make anything like a logical selection of the worst type of crime. Hon. Members say that this is the worst sort of situation—a man who, having been convicted of one murder, commits another.
I would venture to challenge that. There may be cases of men murdering children in the course of rape. I cannot think of anything more terrible than that. A man who would do that is a person who deserves the worst sort of penalty which can be imposed upon him. One can go right around the whole panorama of possible murder and select all sorts of murderers who are worse, in individual cases, than the persons who commit two murders.
A person who may commit two murders is, perhaps, mentally ill-adjusted, whereas another person may murder as a result of a long course of blackmail, by poisoning or something of the sort. An impartial observer would say that the murderer who murders in the course of poisoning or blackmail or rape has done something much more offensive and abhorrent to the conscience of the public than the person who, in an individual case, may have committed two murders.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not misinterpret our attitude towards the Amendment. I am not talking in terms of whether it is a particularly horrible murder or not, but about the whole question of deterrents. If a man has been in prison for a long time and murders a second time while he is in prison, or when he comes out, it is not a question of the horrific nature of the murder. It has been shown that the normal form of deterrent in the form of prisons is not effective, and one has to go back to another form of deterrent which may operate.

Sir F. Soskice: What the Royal Commission said, in effect, was that one cannot draw anything like safe conclusions from experience. I would submit that this is a basic point, that if we try to single out cases which ought to be excepted from the general rule of abolition for various reasons, because they need a particularly severe deterrent, a terrifying punishment, because they are particularly anti-social for some reason


difficult to discover, because their commission involves a particularly heinous attitude of mind, or because it means that the murder must have been planned and executed over a long period in utter disregard of any sense of pity for other human beings, I would put it to the Committee that it is absolutely impossible—as we found when we were considering the Homicide Act of 1957—to work out any scheme which is not immediately open to the most obvious criticism and which is not immediately shown to produce the most obvious anomalies between one case and another.
I therefore say to hon. Members that if they take the broad view that the penalty is abhorrent in itself, and if they felt that sufficiently strongly to be moved to support the Second Reading, then they ought to accept the conclusion that, short of this, one cannot find any way of singling out particular types of murder, even repetitious murders which one wants to keep within the purview of the death penalty. I ask that the Amendment be rejected.

Sir John Hobson: I profoundly agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said in the debate last Wednesday—that the Bill and the problems which we face raise a detestable dilemma for every hon. Member. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) that the whole procedure of bringing about the hanging of a man through judicial processes and through the exercise of the sovereign powers of the State is utterly horrible and detestable. Everybody concerned with it at every stage must abhor it.
But everybody who has ever been concerned with a murder, and has seen photographs of the victims, who knows the bestiality and brutality of the act, who has seen the havoc which can be created amongst the families and the friends of the victims, knows that when an innocent life has been cut off in its prime he equally detests and hates the act which has brought about such a crime.
The only way in which any hon. Member can approach the problem, therefore, is by trying to ignore the emotions

on either side which are raised by consideration either of the judicial processes or of the crime which has set them in motion and to try to consider, rationally and logically, as far as possible, what we are proposing by the Bill and what the results of the Bill must be—whether it is likely to do more harm or more good by accepting the principle of the Bill and deciding that not even this Amendment should be incorporated in it.
In the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) stated a principle which I personally think sets the matter too high. He said:
… if I thought for a moment that the passage of the Bill … would lead to one additional murder, or would create conditions which would lead to additional murders, I would vote against it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 24th February, 1965; c. 188.]
I do not think that that is right. If only one single murder were likely to happen as a result of the Bill, I should willingly accept the abolition of the death penalty. But if there is to be an increase in murders, if the result of the Bill will be that each year more innocent people will be done to death, then I think that the public are right in believing that the Bill and its principles are wrong. Therefore, the interests of hon. Members on this subject—both those who have always been retentionists and many who up to now have been abolitionists—is to see whether the effect of the Bill in the long term will be that the numbers of murders will be increased.
We are grateful to the Home Secretary for the views which he expressed about the way in which he personally approaches the problem and in which he would exercise his powers if the Bill were passed. We do not doubt for one moment that on every occasion when the safety of the public and public order arose it would have first priority in his mind. But the anxiety of those who support the Amendment is that he is depriving himself of an essential weapon for the protection of the public and putting himself in an impossible dilemma of a conflict between penology and deterrence. They are two quite different subjects. The question of how we treat a man and what effect that treatment has on him is a wholly different question from whether we prevent people from


committing murder. The point on which the public and hon. Members must form their judgment is whether the presence of the risk of being caught and hanged will prevent people from committing murder, and whether it has done so in the past.
Nobody can estimate how many murders have been prevented by the existence of the death penalty. We must form our own opinion about that. What I fear, as do others who take the same view, is that by the removal of this supreme penalty we shall see an increase in the number of murders. It is, of course, true that punishment by imprisonment alone can be very severe and can have some deterrent effects, but we think that it will not have a sufficiently deterrent effect and that the result will be to increase the number of murders which will be committed hereafter.

Mr. Donald Chapman: But that is not the issue—

Mr. Stanley Orme: On what premise—

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) must decide to which hon. Member he is giving way.

Mr. Orme: On what premise does the right hon. Gentleman base the statement that the number of murders will increase? If he is using that argument he must give reasons for it and show that this has happened in other countries.

Sir J. Hobson: I will confine myself to this country. The first fact on which I base the argument is that while crime has been steadily increasing in this country, particularly crimes of violence, those crimes which since 1957 have remained capital have not increased, and indeed in the last three years the number of such crimes which have always been capital are precisely the same as in the three years before 1957. That is not conclusive, because we are not trying to see how many crimes were committed but how many have not been committed and, as I have said before, this must be a matter of judgment.
Having prosecuted, defended and otherwise appeared in a number of criminal cases, having been on the Home Secretary's Advisory Committee and on

the Royal Commission for the Police, and from my own experience of the criminal classes and the way in which these murders are committed and in which criminal classes behave, I feel, as a matter of judgment—and it can be only a matter of judgment—that the result of the Bill is likely to be an increase in the number of murders because the deterrent is not there.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been speaking for a long time, and I hesitate to interrupt him, but surely he has not so far made an intervention which is not purely a Second Reading speech.

The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) will allow the Chair to guide the Committee on points of order, but, frankly, I was about to ask the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), as I invited the right hon. and learned Member who preceded him, to link his remarks to the Amendment.

Sir J. Hobson: I appreciate the difficulty and I am sorry if I have gone too wide. But the Home Secretary made a very important pronouncement which he said was related to the general approach to the Amendment. It is difficult to consider this long series of Amendments without looking at the background. I am sorry if I have gone too wide. I will try to come to the Amendment.
The particular problem in every case, whether it is second murders or other murders, is the factor between the chance of discovery and the result which follows. The Home Secretary is right in saying that if we could guarantee 100 per cent. discovery of every crime, in particular, of every murder and every second murder, we might be able to contemplate a reduction in the penalty for murder. But we all know that this is not the situation. When crime is increasing and detection is decreasing, that, surely, is not the time to reduce the deterrent effect of the punishment for those who are caught. I leave the generality because we could go on discussing the generality for a long time.
There can be no more extreme case than the one dealt with in the Amendment, for it is the case of a man who has already been convicted, has already been sentenced and has already served one sentence of imprisonment and who, while either serving that sentence at the time commits a second murder, or, having been released after serving that sentence, commits a second murder. In those circumstances, he either murders a prison officer, or a fellow prisoner, or, if after his release, murders an unfortunate member of the public.
11.30 a.m.
On both murders he had no defence of insanity. He did not even have the defence of diminished responsibility and he could not show on either occasion that he had any abnormality of mind impairing his mental responsibility. In other words, he was a sane, deliberate double killer. No Home Secretary could, in such circumstances, release such a person except until his dotage. It would be a very heavy burden indeed for a Home Secretary to release such a person unless it was after a very, very long period indeed of that man's life; as I say, when he had almost reached his dotage.
What we would be doing, therefore, in such a case would be preserving him so that he could rot for most of his life in prison. We must remember that in the meantime there would be substantial risk and danger to the prison officers who were looking after him and to his fellow prisoners who had to live with him. And what would happen if he murdered a third time? Suppose that the double murderer in custody—assuming that he had not been released—murdered a third time. The Bill would still leave him with his life, in custody, still able to commit a fourth murder. Because of this we say that the Measure does not face up to the problem of the determined killer who simply decides that he should kill a prison officer or fellow prisoner.

Sir Charles Taylor: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend appreciates that such a thing could happen; for example that Christopher Simcox was convicted in 1948, was released in 1959, committed a second murder in 1964 and was sentenced to a second term of life im-

prisonment. I should like to know what happens after that. Will he be released again?

Sir J. Hobson: This, admittedly is a rare case. Admittedly, I am not suggesting that this will happen often, but Parliament is responsible for dealing with all cases. We must deal not only with the likely, but with the possible. If we are not to hang a murderer, however many times he commits murder, we arrive at the position when there is no deterrent and when the prison officers who look after him and the fellow prisoners who must live with him are left at substantial risk.
We say in the Amendment that it is better to draw the line at the second murder. We want to ensure that a murderer, having been given one chance, will never be able to have another chance if he should be such a killer, such a determined, morose, violent man who embarks on a deliberate second murder.

Mr. R. J. Paget: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not putting an argument for hanging the insane?

Sir J. Hobson: With great respect, no. Maybe the man may become insane, and I agree that there is a narrow line between sanity and insanity, but nobody has ever suggested that those who are insane should be treated in any way other than by being kept throughout their lives in safe custody. The double killer is not insane. Very different problems arise.
While people may have to take the risk of guarding and caring for the insane—and the insane can be treated in many ways nowadays—the deliberate killer who retains his sanity and chooses his occasion to kill presents a different problem for those who must keep him. I suggest that we should not put prison warders and prisoners at the risk of having to live with such a man.
I will now deal with the arguments put forward at the outset by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. He began by saying that the matter had already been decided on Second Reading. That cannot be right. It means that this Committee stage is a complete waste of time. The matter goes deeper than that and we should consider each Amendment. I cannot see why,


because, in general, the principle of the Bill has been approved, we should not consider individual cases.
The hon. Member said, secondly, that the death penalty was not a deterrent. I have advanced my arguments on that and have pointed out that it must be, and cannot be other than, a matter of judgment. As to whether the existence of the death penalty prevents murders and has, in the past, prevented them from being committed, one cannot arrive at an answer either by looking at the details of the murders which have been committed, or the types of people who have committed them, because it is those who have not committed them whom we must consider.
The hon. Member said, thirdly, that most murderers were of good character. [Interruption.] That is true. As the Home Secretary said, people have violent fits of passion and may be under great pressure—and who, perhaps through circumstances, their characters deteriorate and they commit murder but regret it bitterly from the moment they have re-established their control.
I am bound to say that of all the criminal classes for whom I have appeared, some of the most charming have been murderers. However, I do not think that anybody claims that the double murderer could normally be described as agreeable. There are men who are violent, insubordinate, sullen, morose and utterly brutal creatures. It is necessary for us to realise that such people exist and to provide penalties which they understand and which are likely to deter them.
The next argument used by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was that because some people commit violent crimes which do not amount to murder and are not hanged, therefore no murderer should be hanged. That seems to be a wholly illogical argument. It ignores the fact that throughout the centuries of history—since the Ten Commandments and even before—the crime of murder has been an exceptional and wholly different crime. We all know that the powers of survival of the human being are very great indeed and that without a gun it takes a great deal to kill a man. Someone not armed with a gun must be of great strength and deter-

mination to achieve the death of a another. And with a gun he must mean to kill or certainly to come very near indeed to killing.
The Minister of State made two principal points. The first was that there are very few known second murders. I entirely agree and, as I said, we must still recognise that there are some of them and that there may be more in future. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) who said that the category of prisoners in the care of prison officers will be in a significant and important respect altered for the worse as a result of the passage of the Bill. There will be a category of persons in prison who up till now have been hanged and who have not had to spend long years in the custody of prison officers. We should face up to the possibility of these events happening, and I submit that the proper way to deal with them is to accept the Amendment.
The second point which the hon. Lady made was that one should look for examples overseas. I do not know about that, but certainly the avant garde frequently like looking behind the Iron Curtain. I understand that Russia has re-established the death penalty for a number of crimes, including black marketeering and burglary. I certainly would not want to draw any analogy with the society in Russia. The hon. Lady was very selective. She selected four countries only, three of them being Scandinavian and the other Holland. There are a lot of other countries in Europe and there is America, and the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment made it quite plain that it was unsafe to draw conclusions from the experience of other countries.
Paragraph 64 of its Report states:
An initial difficulty is that it is almost impossible to draw valid comparisons between different countries. Any attempt to do so, except within very narrow limits, may always be misleading.
It goes on to state that this arises because of
… differences in the legal definitions of crimes, in the practice of the prosecuting authorities and the courts, in the methods of compiling criminal statistics, in moral standards and customary behaviour, and in political, social and economic conditions, it is extremely difficult to compare like with like, and little confidence can be felt in the soundness of the inferences drawn from such comparisons.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree, having read that passage, that it is far more relevant to look at Scandinavian countries, with their democratic traditions, and it being agreed generally that they are more similar to us than other countries, than to start off that red herring about the Soviet Union?

Sir J. Hobson: All I say is that we should not look at any of them or, if we are to look at any of them, we should look at all of them. I only say that the Royal Commission pointed out that it is not safe to rely on these comparisons, and that we should form our own judgment about conditions in this country.

Mr. Christopher Chataway: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend wishes to be entirely fair here. The next sentence in that paragraph states:
An exception may legitimately be made where it is possible to find a small group of countries or States, preferably contiguous, and closely similar in composition of population and social and economic conditions generally, in some of which capital punishment has been abolished and in others not.
On the basis of those comparisons, the Royal Commission came to the conclusion that there was no evidence that capital punishment was, in general terms, a deterrent and, on the basis of that sentence, I think that there is probably something to be said for comparing our own situation in this respect with that of certain other European countries.

Sir J. Hobson: If my hon. Friend reads on a little further he will see that the Royal Commission did not speak of European countries, but of New Zealand,

Australia and the United States of America. Perhaps we had better not pursue that further, but had better look at our own community and society—

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): In the paragraph following that which the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted—paragraph 65—the Royal Commission says that it is more reliable to look at countries before and after abolition, and the paragraph ends by saying:
The general conclusion which we have reached is that there is no clear evidence in any of the figures we have examined that the abolition of capital punishment has led to an increase in the homicide rate, or that its reintroduction has led to a fall.

Sir J. Hobson: Sir J. Hobson rose—

The Chairman: Order. From time to time we are drifting into a Second Reading debate on the Bill.

Sir J. Hobson: I appreciate that, Dr. King, and I will not endeavour to deal further with this quotation of passages from the Royal Commission Report.
I suggest that we should look at this Amendment in the circumstances of the criminal classes today, of the crimes statistics in this country, and of the risks there are that people will commit second murders. For that reason, I suggest that where we are dealing with the deliberate, sane, second murderer, we should retain the death penalty.

Mr. Paget: Mr. Paget rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 237, Noes 130.

Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Redhead, Edward


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Dr. David (W' worth, Central)
Rees, Merlyn


Edelman, Maurice
Lawson, George
Reynolds, G. W.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rhodes, Geoffrey


English, Michael
Ledger, Ron
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ensor, David
Lee, Rt. Hn, Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Evans, loan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Lipton, Marcus
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rose, Paul B.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Loughlin, Charles
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Lubbock, Eric
Rowland, Christopher


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sheldon, Robert


Floud, Bernard
McBride, Neil
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N 'c' tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McCann, J.
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Ford, Ben
MacColl, James
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McGuire, Michael
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Garrett, W. E.
Mclnnes, James
Skeffington, Arthur


Garrow, A.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mackie, George Y. (C' ness &amp; S' land)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Gourlay, Harry
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Small, William


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
MacMillan, Malcolm
Snow, Julian


Grey, Charles
MacPherson, Malcolm
Solomons, Henry


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Spriggs, Leslie


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Steel, D.


Hale, Leslie
Manuel, Archie
Steele, Thomas


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mapp, Charles
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Marsh, Richard
Stonehouse, John


Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Mason, Roy
Stones, William


Hannan, William
Maxwell, Robert
Swain, Thomas


Harper, Joseph
Mendelson, J. J.
Swingler, Stephen


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian
Symonds, J. B.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Millan, Bruce
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Hattersley, Roy
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hayman, F. H.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hazell, Bert
Monslow, Walter
Thornton, Ernest


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Harbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk)
Urwin, T. w.


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Murray, Albert
Varley, Eric G.


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Newens, Stan
Vickers, Dame Joan


Horner, John
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wainwrignt, Edwin


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oakes, Gordon
Wallace, George


Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Ogden, Eric
Warbey, William


Howie, W.
O'Malley, Brian
Watkins, Tudor


Hoy, James
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Orbach, Maurice
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orme, Stanley
Wilkins, W. A.


Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Oswald, Thomas
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Owen, Will
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Padley, Walter
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchln)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Jackson. Colin
Parkin, B. T.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Winterbottom, R. E.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pentland, Norman
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Perry, Ernest G.
Woof, Robert


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Popplewell, Ernest
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Prentice, R. E.
Zillacus, K.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
probert, Arthur



Kelley, Richard
Randall, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kenyon, Clifford
Rankin, John
Mr. R. T. Paget and Mr. Dick Taverne.




NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Eden, Sir John


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Bullus, Sir Eric
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carthalton)


Astor, John
Buxton, R. C.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Chichester-Clark, R.
Errington, Sir Eric


Baker, W. H. K.
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Farr, John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Fell, Anthony


Batsford, Brian
Cooke, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Cordle, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)


Biggs-Davison, John
Corfield, F. V.
Forrest, George


Bingham, R. M.
Costaln, A. P.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Box, Donald
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Gammans, Lady


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Dance, James
Gardner, Edward


Braine, Bernard
Dean, Paul
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt,-Col. Sir Walter
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Glover, Sir Douglas







Glyn, Sir Richard
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maginnls, John E.
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stodart, Anthony


Grant-Ferris R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector
Summers, Sir Spencer


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
More, Jasper
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Teeling, Sir William


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Onslow, Cranley
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hastings, Stephen
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Petar


Hendry, Forbes
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Peyton, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Hobson, Ht. Hn. Sir John
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth
Webster, David


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pitt, Dame Edith
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pounder, Rafton
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wise, A. R.


Jopling, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kimball, Marcus
Rawllnson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wylie, N. R.


Lagden Godfrey
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Younger, Hn. George


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas



McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ridsdale, Julian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacArthur, Ian
Roots, William
Mr. Scott-Hopkins and Sir Rolf Dudley Willams


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Sharpies, Richard



Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sinclair, Sir George

Question put accordingly:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 138, Noes 237.

DIVISION No. 81.
AYES
11.45 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.w.)
Crawshaw, Richard


Albu, Austen
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Crosland, Anthony


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Aldritt, Walter
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dalyell, Tam


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Darling, George


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Buchanan, Richard
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Barnett, Joel
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bence, Cyril
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Carter-Jones, Lewis
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey


Binns, John
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dell, Edmund


Bishop, E. S.
Chapman, Donald
Dempsey, James


Blackburn, F.
Chataway, Christopher
Diamond, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Coleman, Donald
Dodds, Norman


Boston. T. G.
Conlan, Bernard
Doig, Peter


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Driberg, Tom




Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Redhead, Edward


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Dr. David (W' worth, Central)
Rees, Merlyn


Edelman, Maurice
Lawson, George
Reynolds, G. W.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rhodes, Geoffrey


English, Michael
Ledger, Ron
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ensor, David
Lee, Rt. Hn, Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Evans, loan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Lipton, Marcus
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rose, Paul B.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Loughlin, Charles
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Lubbock, Eric
Rowland, Christopher


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sheldon, Robert


Floud, Bernard
McBride, Neil
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N 'c' tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McCann, J.
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Ford, Ben
MacColl, James
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McGuire, Michael
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Garrett, W. E.
Mclnnes, James
Skeffington, Arthur


Garrow, A.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mackie, George Y. (C' ness &amp; S' land)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Gourlay, Harry
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Small, William


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
MacMillan, Malcolm
Snow, Julian


Grey, Charles
MacPherson, Malcolm
Solomons, Henry


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Spriggs, Leslie


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Steel, D.


Hale, Leslie
Manuel, Archie
Steele, Thomas


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mapp, Charles
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Marsh, Richard
Stonehouse, John


Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Mason, Roy
Stones, William


Hannan, William
Maxwell, Robert
Swain, Thomas


Harper, Joseph
Mendelson, J. J.
Swingler, Stephen


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian
Symonds, J. B.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Millan, Bruce
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Hattersley, Roy
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hayman, F. H.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hazell, Bert
Monslow, Walter
Thornton, Ernest


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Harbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk)
Urwin, T. w.


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Murray, Albert
Varley, Eric G.


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Newens, Stan
Vickers, Dame Joan


Horner, John
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wainwrignt, Edwin


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oakes, Gordon
Wallace, George


Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Ogden, Eric
Warbey, William


Howie, W.
O'Malley, Brian
Watkins, Tudor


Hoy, James
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Orbach, Maurice
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orme, Stanley
Wilkins, W. A.


Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Oswald, Thomas
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Owen, Will
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Padley, Walter
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchln)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Jackson. Colin
Parkin, B. T.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Winterbottom, R. E.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pentland, Norman
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Perry, Ernest G.
Woof, Robert


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Popplewell, Ernest
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Prentice, R. E.
Zillacus, K.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
probert, Arthur



Kelley, Richard
Randall, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kenyon, Clifford
Rankin, John
Mr. R. T. Paget and Mr. Dick Taverne.




NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Eden, Sir John


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Bullus, Sir Eric
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carthalton)


Astor, John
Buxton, R. C.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Chichester-Clark, R.
Errington, Sir Eric


Baker, W. H. K.
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Farr, John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Fell, Anthony


Batsford, Brian
Cooke, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Cordle, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)


Biggs-Davison, John
Corfield, F. V.
Forrest, George


Bingham, R. M.
Costaln, A. P.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Box, Donald
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Gammans, Lady


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Dance, James
Gardner, Edward


Braine, Bernard
Dean, Paul
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt,-Col. Sir Walter
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Glover, Sir Douglas







Glyn, Sir Richard
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maginnls, John E.
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stodart, Anthony


Grant-Ferris R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector
Summers, Sir Spencer


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
More, Jasper
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Teeling, Sir William


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Onslow, Cranley
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hastings, Stephen
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Petar


Hendry, Forbes
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Peyton, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Hobson, Ht. Hn. Sir John
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth
Webster, David


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pitt, Dame Edith
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pounder, Rafton
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wise, A. R.


Jopling, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kimball, Marcus
Rawllnson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wylie, N. R.


Lagden Godfrey
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Younger, Hn. George


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas



McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ridsdale, Julian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacArthur, Ian
Roots, William
Mr. Scott-Hopkins and Sir Rolf Dudley Willams


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Sharpies, Richard



Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sinclair, Sir George





DIVISION No.82.
AYES
11.55 a.m.


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Gardner, Edward
Onslow, Cranley


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Astor, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Atkins, Humphrey
Glyn, Sir Richard
Percival, Ian


Baker, W. H. K.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Goodhew, Victor
Pitt, Dame Edith


Batsford, Brian
Gower, Raymond
Pounder, Rafton


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Pym, Francis


Bingham, R. M.
Grieve, Percy
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Blaker, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Bossom Hn. Clive
Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Box, Donald
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Braine, Bernard
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Ridsdale, Julian


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Roots, William


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Sharples, Richard


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hastings, Stephen
Sinclair, Sir George


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hendry, Forbes
Smiln Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Bullus Sir Eric
Hiley, Joseph
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Buxton, R. C.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Stodart, Anthony


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cooke, Robert
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cordle, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Corfield, F. V.
Kimball, Marcus
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Costain, A. P.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Teeling, Sir William


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lagden, Godfrey
Temple, John M.


Dance, James
Lambton, Viscount
Thomas, lorweth (Rhondda, W.)


Dean, Paul
Leadbitter, Ted
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


du cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Ward, Dame Irene


Eden, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Webster, David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maginnis, John E.
Whitelaw, William


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mawby, Ray
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Farr, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wise, A. R.


Fell, Anthony
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Mitchell, David
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
Monro, Hector
Younger, Hn. George


Forrest, George
More, jasper



Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Garnmans, Lady
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. Scott-Hopkins and Sir Rolf Dudley Williams.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Albu, Austen
Hattersley, Roy
Oswald, Thomas


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hayman, F. H.
Owen, Will


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hazell, Bert
Padley, Walter


Alldritt, W. H.
Heffer, Eric S.
Paget, R. T.


Armstrong, Ernest
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)


Atkinson, Norman
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Parkin, B. T.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Barnett, Joel
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bence, Cyril
Horner, John
Pentland, Norman


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, Ernest G.


Binns, John
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Peyton, John


Bishop, E. S.
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Popplewell, Ernest


Blackburn, F.
Howie, W.
Prentice, R. E.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hoy, James
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boston, T. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Probert, Arthur


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, Harry


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Rankln, John


Bowen, Rcderic (Cardigan)
Hyna, H. (Accrington)
Redhead, Edward


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rees, Merlyn


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Reynolds, G. W.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Jackson, Colin
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Brown Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, R. W. (shoredltch &amp; Fbury)
Johnson, carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Buchanan, Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rose, Paul B.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rowland, Christopher


Carter-Jones, Lewi
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Sheidon, Robert


Castle, Rt. Ht. Barbara
Jopling, Michael
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Chapman, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Chateway, Christopher
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Coleman, Donald
Kerr. Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Conlan, Bernard
Kirk, P.
Skeffington, Arthur


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Ledger, Ron
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Crosland, Anthony
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Small, William


Cullen, Mrs, Alice
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Snow, Julian


Dalyell, Tam
Lipton, Marcus
Solomons, Henry


Darling, George
Lomas, Kenneth
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Loveys, Walter H.
Steele, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lubbock, Eric
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stonehouse, John


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
McBride, Neil
Stones, William


Dell, Edmund
McCann, J.
Swain, Thomas


Dempsey, James
MacColl, James
Swingler, Stephen


Diamond, Jhon
McGuire, Michael
Symonds, J. B.


Dodds, Norman
Mclnnes, James
Steel, D.


Doig, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Driberg, Tom
Mackle, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mackle, John (Enfield, E.)
Thornton, Ernest


Dunn, James A.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Thorpe, Jeremy


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Tinn, James


English, Michael
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Urwin, T. W.


Ensor, David
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Varley, Eric G.


Evans, Ioad (Birmingham, Yardley)
Manuel, Archie
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fernyhough, E.
Mapp, Charles
Wainwright, Edwin


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Marsh, Richard
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mason, Roy
Wallace, George


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Maxwell, Robert
Warbey, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington, E.)
Mendelson, J. J.
Watkins, Tudor


Floud, Bernard
Mikardo, Ian
Whitlock, William



Millan- Bruce
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Ford, Ben
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Garrett, W. E.
Miscampbell, Norman
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Garrow, A.
Monslow, Walter
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Grey, Charles
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Murray, Albert
Winterbottom, R. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Newens, Stan
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
woof, Robert


Hale, Leslie
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phllip (Derby, S.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oakes, Gordon
Zilliacus, K.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Ogden, Eric



Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
O'Malley, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hannan, William
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)
Mr. Dick Tarerne and Dr. David Keir.


Harper, Joseph
Orbach, Maurice



Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley

Mr. A. P. Costain: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 5, after "murder", to insert:
except a person who murders a police officer acting in the execution of his duty".

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): It would be convenient also to discuss Amendment No. 7, in line 5, after "murder", to insert:
except for any murder of a police officer acting in the execution of his duty or of a person assisting a police officer so acting".

Mr. Costain: It has been customary throughout the debate for those hon. Members who move Amendments to give the Committee an indication of how they voted on Second Reading. I have to explain to the Committee that I had much heart-searching on how I should vote. The position was made much more difficult for me by reason of the fact that for many years I have been making long and frequent visits to Persia, a country where public hanging is still accepted as part of the normal way of things. During the course of these visits, I had the misfortune to be present in one or two villages when these public hangings took place and, naturally, I was very much distressed by what I saw.
I therefore found it even more difficult to make a decision on this matter, but I finally voted against the Bill because I think it is the duty of the House and of Parliament to protect the victim rather than the murderer. I was extremely thankful that in this country public execution had been abandoned and, in criticising the Persians, I was fully conscious of the fact that it was not so many years ago that we had these spectacles ourselves. But my thoughts went most to the victims, and in moving the Amendment I am conscious of the fact that we are talking of a particularly vulnerable type of victim—a victim who is a servant of the House and of the Queen and who, in carrying out his duties, is taking an unusual risk.
I thought that the Home Secretary, speaking on the previous Amendment, when your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, called him to order, was making a better case for this Amendment that I could possibly make, because he laid particular emphasis on the fact that imprisonment for nine years was a

very serious punishment which most criminals would detest and would try to avoid at all costs. It is in this connection that I direct my argument. I believe that the criminal class in this country have now become a profession who will calculate the risk, very much like a businessman or, probably more appropriately, a gambler would calculate a risk. In calculating that risk, the criminal has regard to what will happen to him if he is caught. Part of his calculation must be his means of escape, and we expect and demand of our police force the carrying out of special duties in that connection. They are rather like firemen in a brigade who will always be nearest to the flames. I think it is the duty of the Home Secretary to give them special protection. This is the very matter to which my Amendment directs special attention.
When a policeman is apprehending a criminal caught in an act of robbery, what does he say, and how might his approach be altered if the Amendment is not accepted? Incidentally, I do not believe that enough people in the House or in the country realise what sentences can be imposed under the Larceny Act. In the confrontation between policeman and robber, the policeman says, quite naturally, "Come along quietly", and the robber will be able to say,"What have I got to lose if I shoot you with the gun in my hand?" We shall be taking the last argument out of the policeman's mind, because he will no longer be able to say to the robber, "You have got your life to lose". The robber will know that he can be sentenced to nine, ten or, perhaps, more years of imprisonment.
I do not call in aid the mail train robbery, and I do not wish to argue on that basis now because, for this purpose, I regard it as a special case. I am arguing from the standpoint of the ordinary habitual criminal who has probably been caught once or twice and convicted and who is again carrying on his business. He is the gambler who is looking to the "getting out" stakes, and I do not want the "getting out" stakes to be applied to the wife of one of our policemen.
I have no doubt that it will be said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) that the number of policemen murdered could be


counted on the fingers of two hands, or even less, but this is of no consequence in the argument at all. It is a national tragedy when one policeman is murdered. We have seen this only too recently. We have a sense of shame as a nation when such a thing happens. We know the tragedy for the families involved, we know the effect on the morale of the police themselves, many of whom are moved to feel more vindictive than we should like them to be. We know also that it puts an argument in the mouth of the criminal.
I respect the views of the absolute abolitionists who believe that to hang a man at any time is wrong, but I reply that we are talking about one man's life against another. I am pleading not that we should hang the criminal but that we should save the life of a policeman and give him an argument by which he may save his life.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is a splendid debater, and he may well base an argument upon what happens in other countries, pointing out that violent crime did not increase there. But I remind the Committee that in many other countries the police are armed. If we do not accept the Amendment, the logical outcome will be that our police will eventually have to be armed. The police do not want to be armed. The public do not want them to be armed. But, ultimately, we shall face the danger of the Chicago gangster effect in Britain.
I do not for a moment accept that I am exaggerating, but to those who may say that I am I reply that in countries comparable with ours policemen generally go about in pairs. In Britain, this is most unusual. The only time when policemen go about their beat in pairs is when a young constable is receiving instruction or when they know that they are likely to meet a gang of criminals. We are so short of police in this country that we cannot apprehend the present number of criminals. It is one of the nation's complaints against the House of Commons that we have not done enough to protect the public. If we now arrange, as a result of the Bill, that the police must go about in pairs, just in order to satisfy a doctrinaire policy, we shall further increase the criminal's chances of not being apprehended.
I am glad that Amendment No. 7 is to be discussed at the same time, but I do not address myself to that at all except to say that I support it. I have an overwhelming case for acceptance of my Amendment for the protection of our police forces, and I do not want to give the sponsor of the Bill any opportunity to slide out of it. Indeed, if this Amendment is not accepted, I can see no other Amendment which will be accepted.
12.15 p.m.
This Amendment raises the issue on which we, as a House of Commons, must accept direct responsibility for the life of a civil servant, a servant whom we expect to undertake a difficult duty and to run exceptional risks. Unless we are prepared to give him this small support in the performance of his duties, we shall be asking him to do too much. If the Amendment is not accepted, it will not be for lack of strength in the case but for lack of ability in me to persuade the Committee of the urgent need to meet a very present danger. For the rest of my life, if a policeman is murdered, I shall feel in myself some responsibility.

Mr. Edward Gardner: At any time of any day or night, in any town or village or part of our countryside, one can see a remarkable sight, a police constable patrolling along, unarmed, and with nothing but a whistle and a truncheon to protect himself. I am sure we all desire to see this feature of our life preserved. I sincerely believe, having regard to what little experience I have had, that unless the Bill incorporates a provision of this kind our hopes of preserving that feature of our life will become remote and may even pass away.
The police officer is the shield, the only shield, standing between the general public and the criminal. He does his work out of an extraordinarily keen sense of duty and high integrity and a degree of courage which we should never cease to acknowledge. The majority of policemen believe that when they do their duty in this way they are protected from violent assault and even from the criminal killer because, at present, the death penalty stands between them and the perils which they otherwise would face. The Committee would be doing a grave disservice to our police forces if it


were lightly to accept that the police could still perform their duties without the protection of the death penalty in the safety which they feel today.
Let us, for the sake of the argument, take it that the average spell of life imprisonment is nine to ten years—although I am not content that it should be taken as nine to ten years. I find the contention that the prospect simply of nine to ten years' imprisonment is a sufficient substitute to take the place of the death penalty a very disturbing philosophy. Of course it is a long time, and anyone contemplating a fatal attack upon a police officer might well hesitate at the prospect of being in prison for about ten years. But let us be realistic about it, as the Royal Commission was realistic about it. Imprisonment is the ordinary professional risk taken by the criminal. He accepts it. It carries no stigma for the criminal community. Many criminals have a perverted pride in it. But one thing which does matter in the criminal community and which puts fear in their minds and acts on their decisions not to go about armed, in the main, is the fear of the death penalty.

Mr. Orme: No.

Mr. Gardner: If the hon. Member reads the Royal Commission's Report he will see that the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, in giving evidence, cited the case of a gang of shop breakers one of whose members was convicted of murder, sentenced to death and then reprieved. The gang still held together and continued operating. Later two further members of the gang were convicted of murder, and they were hanged—and the gang disappeared and no more was heard of it. The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis—and I do not think his conclusion can in any way seriously be attacked—said that it was reasonable to suppose that one of the reasons, if not the main reason, for the dissolution of the gang was the fact that the others took notice of the death penalty, whereas they were prepared, as the majority of criminals are, to take the risk of imprisonment and to set that on one side of the balance sheet against the loot which can be obtained from successful crime.

Mr. Paget: The hon. Member is referring to the Captain Benny case. I am

quoting from memory, but I think a question was put to the Commissioner, "Might not the gang have dissolved because the two leading spirits were no longer there?" He said, in reply, "Yes, that might account for the dissolution of the gang".

Mr. Gardner: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member. He makes a point which I should have hesitated to make.

Mr. William Yates: Even if the deterrent perhaps does not work against some criminals, does not my hon. and learned Friend think that it has some effect among the family and relatives and those around the criminal classes?

Mr. Gardner: I entirely agree. The question is whether nine or ten years of imprisonment, representing life imprisonment, is sufficient to frighten the criminal. Personally—and these are matters for personal decision—I think that really long terms of imprisonment must have the most alarming effects upon the criminal mind.
We have the position, which leaves us in a state of surprise, that the Home Secretary views ten years as adequate to frighten a killer from using a gun on a policeman without in any way referring to the consequences of other crimes which are not comparable. Murder is the gravest of all crimes, and the Royal Commission accepted that for it there is the most severe of all penalties. Consider the case of a man who has just robbed a bank. He has a gun in his pocket. If he is caught, and bearing in mind sentences which have been imposed recently, he might get a sentence of imprisonment of up to 30 years. Whether we say that this is good or bad is beside the point. Seeing the policeman approach, he may decide to use his gun in order to shoot his way out to freedom. If, having killed the policeman, he is then caught, he will go to prison not for 30 years but for an average of nine or ten years. This seems to me to be provocation, not prevention, and not protection of the police force.

Mr. Orme: Does the hon. and learned Member seriously suggest that if murder had been committed during the train robbery the sentences passed would not have been as long as those already passed—30 years?

Mr. Gardner: I am grateful to the hon. Member for making the point. If


a person commits murder with a gun, or in the course of or furtherance of theft, then under the provisions of the Homicide Act he attracts the punishment of hanging. That is the present law. If capital punishment is abolished we shall reach what I submit is the quite absurd and unacceptable position of the robber who kills being exposed to the peril of nine or ten years' imprisonment—that is, life imprisonment—for murder, whereas the robber who does not kill is at the peril of going to prison for 30 years. That is the reality of the situation.
Those who support the Bill in toto, without seeing any of its grave defects—and they are there to be seen by anyone who carefully examines the Bill—will not face up to reality. All I am trying to persuade the Committee is to face the reality of the situation. I beg the Committee to accept that as we look upon the police constable as a shield against the criminal community, so the police constable in his turn may look to us for protection. What protection shall we give? Shall we abolish the protection which he has had up to now? It is easy, in the comparative quiet and safety of the House, to say, "We do not have to worry about policemen. Only a few are shot at. It happens only once in ten or fifteen years that a policeman is killed. Why need we concern ourselves with a remote possibility of this kind?" If it lets the Bill go through without an Amendment such as this, the Committee will be removing, from policemen the protection in which at the moment the majority of them can believe.
12.30 p.m.
it seems to me to matter very little whether their belief is well or ill founded, particularly so if it happens to be—as appears to be the case if the statistics are any guide—that the killing of policemen is rare. How can one say—and this is a point rehearsed time and again—"Where are the statistics to enable one to conclude how many policemen now walk the streets in safety whose lives have been saved by the fear in the minds of criminals that they have been apprehended"? It is proposed to remove that fear. It is all very well to say that we can do this with safety. Those who claim it must prove it. It is not for those who say that the protection should be maintained to prove that it is necessary. The onus lies upon those who say that

we can do away with it. Let us see the evidence that it can be done away with in safety.
People believe that capital punishment operates to protect the police, that it gives them safety and certainly gives them comfort. The majority of the police will tell one that they firmly believe that the death penalty as a punishment for the killing of a policeman is one of the most substantial safeguards that they have at the moment against the violence welling up around them.
One must bear in mind, although this is a Private Member's Bill, that when we are considering the safety of policemen who are protecting the public, the Government's duty cannot be shifted on to the shoulders of a private Member, however sincerely the views of that hon. Member may be held and however much we may admire his tenacity of purpose. It is a responsibility that the Government have to take upon themselves.
With the greatest respect and deference to the Home Secretary, I say to him that it is a duty which lies inevitably on his shoulders. Whatever he may feel personally about abolition or retention, I submit to him that, in his great office, he has, among other responsibilities, the grave one of seeing that everything is done to give the police the maximum protection they need and deserve against the criminal community.
If anyone wants to desire authority to support this point of view, I draw their attention to what I am sure all hon. Members have carefully read—the memorandum to all hon. Members on the subject of capital punishment sent out by the Police Federation. Paragraph 11 says:
Although we have no proof that the special provisions in the Homicide Act are a deterrent against murdering policemen, it is a positive fact that in this country remarkably few are murdered; and also that very few criminals carry firearms, as distinct from coshes, pick helves or other similar weapons, which are carried and used to repel and not to kill. It is also a fact that policemen and policewomen consciously feel that the special provisions serve as an effective protection. So do their wives and families.
And so do a multitude of other people in this country. I submit that the majority of them believe it.
Last Friday I addressed a small meeting of about 33 people in a village hall.


They were ratepayers in part of my constituency. We discussed the Bill. At the end of the meeting the chairman asked for a vote on a motion that capital punishment as a protection of the police should not be rejected. Those 33 people came from political parties of all colours, and not one showed any support for the view that we could with safety abolish capital punishment for the murder of policemen. Not one was not convinced that to do this would be to introduce a danger entirely unacceptable to the majority of the people and particularly unacceptable to the police.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I oppose the Amendment precisely because I believe that it would have the opposite effect to what is intended. Psychological factors have not been properly assessed by hon. Members discussing the so-called deterrent effect of capital punishment. I agree completely with the Home Secretary that the prime object must be to protect the public and, as legislators, we surely must try to achieve a balance, for no one can give any guarantee that any course he chooses will produce the result he expects in 100 per cent. of cases.
There must, therefore, be a balance and one must be sure that, by plugging one outlet, one does not thereby open a larger one. I believe that this is precisely what the Amendment would do. I do not think that the professional criminal class is a violent one. It has been recognised that the professional criminal is not violent, particularly when it comes to committing murder. Murder is usually committed in the heat of the moment. It is not, in general, committed by people who have had previous records of violence.
To say that the retention of capital punishment will protect the police is giving an assessment to factors which do not apply and leaving out factors which do apply. I believe, indeed, that we might increase the risk to the police by continuing to have capital punishment because there are individuals who have a necessity to kill and to whom there is a glamour about capital punishment. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) talked about the "gamble" involved, but did not say

what the stakes were. Sometimes the stakes are not what appear to be obvious.

Mr. Costain: Would the hon. Gentleman give a simple answer? A policeman confronts a criminal he is about to arrest. The criminal says, with gun in hand, "What have I to lose if I shoot you?". What does the policeman reply?

Dr. Miller: I am not in a position to say what the policeman would reply. Surely we are talking about what we should do as legislators in this respect.
When the potential murderer is in a position to kill, the gamble involved is sometimes not a gamble as one would normally expect. The gamble in such a case is concerned with the necessity for this individual to go out in a blaze of glory, especially when it comes to killing a policeman, because the kind of man who would be involved would not be concerned with the risk of his life being taken. That would be his object, his fundamental, psychopathological desire, and it is, therefore, possible that rather than protect the policeman, we would increase the chance of his being killed by a criminal of this type if we had a provision such as the Amendment suggests.
Too little attention has been paid to the interplay of psychological factors. When we are arguing about what the criminal would think, we tend to believe that the violent criminal, the potential murderer, thinks as we do, that he weighs up the possibilities before taking action. If he does think about it, his innate desires may well come to the fore and make him kill because he wishes himself to be killed. It would obviously be a deterrent to us. It would be a very great deterrent to me, but I do not think that I am likely to commit a murder. It does not mean that it would be a deterrent to people such as those whom hon. Members opposite have described as the criminal classes.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree to go even further and say that while it may be a deterrent to him to make his speech in the atmosphere of this Chamber, if he were committing a robbery while armed with a lethal weapon, and a policeman suddenly loomed up at him from nowhere, if he had a pistol in his


hand his actions might be very different and he would have no time to do this type of calculation, even if he were that type of individual?

Dr. Miller: That is precisely the point which has been made over and over again—that something happens on the spur of the moment. The balance of whether the individual will be hanged or go to prison does not enter into it. The action is taken and that is all that there is to it.

Mr. Lagden: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the word "gamble" implies
"stakes"? The hon. Gentleman has put forward this complicated opinion about a man who might desire to kill and who might set out to kill, but will he not bear in mind that, at the same time, the police officer, in the execution of his duty, also has a very large stake in this matter—his life?

12.45 p.m.

Dr. Miller: That is precisely the point I am making, that the policeman's life might even be safer if hanging is abolished.
There have been such cases, and I can think of one myself concerning an individual who was a multiple murderer and who was hanged in Glasgow a few years ago. I am sure that he had a desire to be killed, and that if there had not been capital punishment five people might have been alive today. This man wanted to go out in a blaze of glory, and he did. He had a desire to die and he died on the gallows. That is what he wanted.
When we consider these balances, we have also to remember the occasional possibility of the murderer who may have made the calculation and who murders to escape, who is the extreme case, as against the individual who kills precisely because he will be hanged, the individual who would not kill precisely because there was no capital punishment and who would kill only because of a desire to die on the scaffold. Future generations discussing this issue will probably do so from an entirely different point of view, with a knowledge of what goes on inside the mind of the individual, from the psychological or psychopathological point of view. I hope that the day is not too far away when it will be seen that there are individuals, who can be detected

beforehand, who have psychopathic tendencies, violent tendencies. We shall then know very much more about what goes on in the mind of a potential murderer.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) has made a very sincere and thoughtful contribution to the debate. I appreciate his sincerity, but I fear that I cannot accept his argument. One point he made was in respect of the background of those guilty of capital murder. He said that the bulk were not professional criminals as such. I only remind him of some figures, which I have given to the Committee before, of previous convictions of 52 men convicted of capital murder since 1957. Fourteen had no previous convictions, but 38 had, ranging between one and 21 offences. I do no more than point to the hon. Gentleman the fact that we are not dealing with an isolated class of murderers such as we considered before the 1957 Act, but more than ever before with the professional criminal.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) suggested, this is not the least important of the Amendments which we shall consider. There is no category of public servant, not excluding the category we have just discussed, which would be more affected by the passage of the Bill unchanged. Hon. Members opposite must not beguile themselves by thinking that the risk some of these people run is imaginary, because it is not.
We had a measure of that risk only this morning in some figures which the Home Secretary published in reply to a Question from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson). These concerned indictable offences known to the police and in which firearms had been involved in the last four years. They show a marked increase in the use of firearms and when there is a marked increase of that type, it is the police almost certainly who are most at risk.
In view of what is at stake for the police, a word of tribute is due to them for their behaviour over the Bill in recent weeks and months. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay quoted the very restrained language of the paper


from the Police Federation. Throughout these discussions all the policemen I have encountered have shown marked restraint towards a Bill which will affect their lives much more than it will affect the lives of any of us here. They have shown a marked degree of unselfishness.
All my inquiries lead me to the conclusion that they are genuinely more concerned with the risk which might befall the public from gunmen than with the safety of their own skins. It is important to stress that we are speaking not for a frightened force, but for a force which is genuinely concerned about the consequences to the public.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay quoted the paper from the Police Federation. The Home Secretary will have made inquiries of his own among more senior policemen as to how they feel about this proposal. I think that he has stated in answer to a Question, or perhaps in a speech, that he was conducting such inquiries. I hope that he will be able to help the Committee with the conclusions that he has drawn from these inquiries. It is very important that we should be armed with the views, not only of the Police Federation, but of the more senior policemen, whom, I am sure, the Home Secretary in his duty has consulted, as they have always been consulted when a Bill of this kind has been before the House of Commons. I hope that before we go too far on this Amendment the Home Secretary will be able to assist us.
I am not saying that the view of the senior policemen should be decisive, but it is highly relevant, and we should know what they feel. The police are very heavily engaged in combating violent crime, more heavily perhaps than at any other time. Frankly, the battle is not moving their way. I do not want to exaggerate or to dramatise this matter because it requires neither, but it is fair to say that there has emerged in the last year or two a rather miscellaneous minority of criminals who are ready to resort to extreme measures. As has been said very convincingly, they are playing for very high stakes.
That is not all. The danger of gunfire to the policeman is not limited exclusively to the professional criminal, the man who

may shoot his way out of a difficult situation. There is also—and I know that the Home Secretary is well aware of this—the hoodlum, which is a more expressive word than "hooligan". I accept that against this development we are ranging the Firearms Bill, which I think is now a stronger Measure than it was when it was introduced. It will undoubtedly reduce the number of guns in circulation. What the Home Secretary will do by way of an amnesty will reduce the number of guns in circulation. But it will not deny arms to the determined criminal, and it will not of itself prevent him from using arms against the police in certain circumstances. I am sure that that will be accepted even by those who have great hopes of what the Firearms Bill may do.
It will be argued, on the other hand, that the fact that so many policemen have, alas, in recent months been involved in shooting affairs proves that hanging is not a deterrent. That is a very rash assumption. This argument is constantly used in one form or another in favour of abolition. I would merely refer—I will not quote it all again—to the views of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment in paragraph 59 of its Report which states:
We can number its failures. But we cannot number its successes.
None of us knows how many men have been deterred from shooting a policeman, in particular, at a critical moment by the existence of hanging.
Alternatively, it may well be argued that we had 18 months' experience between the Second Reading of the Bill of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne in 1956 and its rejection by the House of Lords and that in that 18 months no policeman was shot.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: That was not the 18 months. The 18 months period was between the passing of the Second Reading of the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill and the passing of the Homicide Act the following year.

Mr. Deedes: I accept the correction in point of time, but there was a period of 18 months during which no policeman was shot.

Mr. Silverman: indicated dissent.

Mr. Deedes: I would not seek to make too much or too little of that; it was eight years ago. Hon. Members must weigh for themselves whether circumstances today appear to them as they appeared eight years ago. It is not unfair to suggest that on appearances the police today are at greater risk from certain quarters than they were then.
I cannot but think that any member of this Committee who is prepared to weigh up coolly the merits of this Amendment in present circumstances must conclude that it might be a wise exception to the Bill. What depresses me is the knowledge that it will not be so weighed. The case for this Amendment, and other Amendments, is not being weighed on merit. It is not being weighed on what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay described as the realities of the situation. It is being weighed on other considerations.

Mr. Costain: Do not some Members here say that the opposite argument can logically be made?

Mr. Deedes: I was about to say, because I am most anxious to be fair, that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) and his closest supporters view the Bill in the light of a crusade. I take no exception to this. The hon. Gentleman has a right to do that. He and his supporters are crusaders for total abolition. Nothing less will suit them. I am not without some respect for their attitude. The House of Commons would be a very poor place if it turned its back on crusaders, and I should like to acknowledge that.
But this is not quite the position of the Government and the Home Secretary. I do not think that members of the Government, and the Home Secretary, in particular, can quite regard themselves as acting as crusaders. The Home Secretary has other and graver responsibilities. I want to echo what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay said. I do not wish to appear presumptuous in saying this, but it is part of our argument. He has the gravest responsibilities for law, and order and for the police, one-third of whom, in the Metropolitan area, come under his direct responsibility. An obligation rests on the Home Secretary to weigh up coolly the merits of this Amendment.

Mr. Paget: The point on which I have been waiting to hear the right hon. Gentleman's views is this. The police are so much safer in the "Abolitionist Stakes" than in the "Capital Punishment Stakes", particularly in America. This has been one of the principal reasons why a number of American States which formerly had capital punishment are now going abolitionist. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the evidence, for instance, of the Chief of Police of Rhode Island, just the other day, who supported the abolition of capital punishment because experience showed that it made things so much safer for the police?

Mr. Deedes: I would not deny that there are sincere abolitionists among policemen. This is why I have asked the Home Secretary to give us information on the results of his inquiries among senior policemen. While there may be abolitionists among policemen, men who sincerely hold that point of view, there is for them a bigger risk than for anybody else.

Mr. Lagden: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is desirable to ask the Home Secretary to obtain the opinions of top policemen, it is also very important for him to pay full attention to the opinion of the Police Federation, which represents the man on the beat?

Mr. Deedes: I am assuming that the Home Secretary will have taken note, as other hon. Members have taken note, of what has come from the Police Federation. The point that I am making is that there are other views besides those of the Police Federation. There are men in senior positions in the police force in London and outside it who will have a view, and it is extremely important that the Committee should be able to share any findings which the Home Secretary has been able to gather from them. I am sure that he will appreciate that I am not anticipating dereliction of duty on his part. I know that we shall hear from him on this matter.
In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), may I say that it is not conclusive evidence to point to policemen in the United States or anywhere else who may take a


certain view about capital punishment and relate it to the present criminal situation in this country and the situation which confronts policemen in dealing with the criminal population. It is the situation in this country with which some of us are concerned and which, at this moment, renders aspects of this Bill so very difficult and possibly so very dangerous.
What I was saying when the hon. and learned Gentleman intervened was this. He—

It being One o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Resolution [18th March].

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday next.

Sitting suspended.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Hill Cow Subsidy

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a statement about the assistance which he intends to give to those hill farmers who have been given notice of discontinuance of hill cow subsidy as a result of the recent reviews undertaken at the time of the previous Administration.

Sir H. Studholme: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has now come to a decision as to the best way of helping those farms in Devon which have been excluded from the hill cow subsidy scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the review of hill cow farmers has now been completed; and how he proposes to help those who have been excluded from this subsidy.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): These farmers have had to be excluded from the hill cow subsidy, under the recently completed review, because their land is suitable to a material extent for dairying, fattening or cash cropping. Several of the changes made at this year's Annual Review will benefit them. Furthermore, we are giving urgent consideration to the longer-term problems of small farms and development in the hills.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Minister aware that the short-term problem is that there are small farmers who are declared ineligible and who face a loss of up to £900 a year and that the Annual Price Review does

nothing specifically for those hill farmers who are outside the scheme? As, furthermore, the Minister points to a decline in beef production, would it not be valuable to give these farmers immediate assistance so that they can revert to beef production?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member will appreciate that I have looked carefully at the position. I cannot, however, accept his thesis that if farmers have, after all, been found to be drawing a subsidy which Parliament never intended them to draw, it is up to the Government of the day to devise special compensatory measures. This is what we are doing. I am urgently studying ways of tackling the basic problems, not only of small farmers, but of those on the uplands as well.

Mr. Thorpe: May we know when the result of the Minister's thinking will be made known?

Mr. Peart: As soon as I complete my survey of the uplands as well as of the hill areas, I will certainly convey the information to the House.

Sir H. Studholme: Can the Minister now answer the question which I put to him in the debate on the hill cow subsidy in the autumn about whether farmers who have been disqualified from the hill cow subsidy can be eligible under the winter keep scheme?

Mr. Peart: They can apply and each individual case will be considered by my Department.

Mr. Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind that in the particularly farming area which I represent, it is difficult—in fact, impossible—to find alternative farming methods? The farmers cannot turn to milk or to cereals. The Minister gave an assurance that he would look into the matter and see whether further legislation could be brought in to bring these people within the scheme. He has not done so in the last Price Review. The Minister should give us an answer on this subject.

Mr. Peart: I am looking at this matter and I have given a reply to the hon. Member. I will bear in mind all representations that are made to me. I have met representatives from the National Farmers' Union and also from the area on this question. I am sympathetic but,


for the reasons which 1 have given, I could not alter the position. I will, however, consider the matter carefully.

Beef

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the reputation of beef produced in this country by traditional methods, he will be vigilant in ensuring that artificial production methods do not undermine this.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James H. Hoy): This is essentially a matter in which consumer preference must exert its influence on the market. But, as my right hon. Friend said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) on 10th March, he has asked his Scientific Advisory Panel to consider whether intensive systems of production of animals have any effect on the quality and taste of food produced from them.

Mr. Farr: Is the Minister aware that the recent Price Review will do little to encourage graziers either to maintain the quantity or to improve the quality of beef? As beef rearing in the traditional manner is the result of a long and painstaking process, will the Minister consider another Price Review so that this factor can be taken into consideration?

Mr. Hoy: The Price Review is the settlement which has been produced. The hon. Member's supplementary question has nothing to do with the Question on the Paper.

Maize (Imports)

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the total tonnage of maize imported in 1955 and in the latest available year.

Mr. Hoy: The total tonnage of maize imported was 1·5 million tons in 1955 and 3–4 million tons in 1964.

Mr. Farr: In view of this startling increase in the importation of maize, which has almost doubled in 10 years, will the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend amend the arrangements whereby they imposed savage price cuts

upon our coarse grain producers and try instead to economise in the production of maize, at the same time saving foreign currency, which is badly needed?

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Member had better face the fact that what was done in the Price Review was in conformity with an international agreement that w0as entered into by the Government of his party.

Mr. Stodart: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much of this imported maize is used for feedingstuffs and how much is used to adulterate a product called Scotch whisky?

Mr. Hoy: I cannot answer the last part of the question about whether the whisky is adulterated. I have often heard it said that there are certainly a lot of very good whiskies but no bad ones. In reply to the first part of the question, animal feeding requirements have risen by 3¼ million tons since 1955.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agree that there was no reason in the international agreement why the Government had to make the maximum cut this year on cereals?

Mr. Hoy: What I am saying—and the hon. Gentleman cannot evade it—is that the agreement was entered into by the Government of which he was a member and that we were bound by international agreement to take certain action in the event of certain limits being reached.

Potatoes

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, having regard to the current price of potatoes, he will now arrange with the Potato Marketing Board for a support price.

Mr. Hoy: I have nothing to add to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor) on 22nd February.

Mr. King: Is the Minister aware that this potato price is as inadequate as is the price offered by him for milk? When the Government decided upon this policy of poverty farming, did they also consider the effect not only upon the farmer, but


upon agricultural workers, whose standard of living is already low and which must as a result become lower?

Mr. Hoy: That supplementary question has nothing to do with the Question. Indeed, it is just a conglomeration rather resembling the hon. Member's political thinking.

Mr. Speaker: I quite agree that the supplementary question has nothing to do with the Question, but I am not certain that I greatly admire that type of answer.

Mr. Hoy: If the hon. Member puts a supplementary question that has nothing to do with the original Question, Mr. Speaker, certainly he must take that type of answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order. The point is that if answers are used for what I might describe as making gentle inter-party attacks, such a practice tends to prolong the time we take Over Questions.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. Member on the Front Bench to contest your Ruling whilst back-benchers cannot?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was contesting any Ruling. If he did, I did not notice it. I want to get on with Questions.

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the average price per ton of potatoes paid to the grower in the last three months.

Mr. Hoy: The average price received by United Kingdom growers for the last three months is estimated at £14 12s. a ton.

Mr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this price is insufficient to yield to farmers a sufficient return, and as he appears to have taken some umbrage at my earlier Question, may I ask whether he is aware that that is not merely my opinion, but the opinion of 200 angry Dorset farmers who were stamping the Lobby this morning? Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it is my duty to put their view, just as it is his duty to hear it, and to note it?

Mr. Hoy: Of course, and I will listen to it if it is put by the hon. Gentleman. All I can say is that the guaranteed price for the 1964 crop was £14 per ton. That was the agreement reached. Over the last three months it has been shown that the price is likely to be about £14 12s. As the hon. Gentleman knows, further discussions are taking place, but we have had two support buying programmes in the course of this year to get it to this level.

Mr. MacArthur: Is it not correct that the United Kingdom average conceals a depressed price paid to growers in Scotland, and can the hon. Gentleman say what estimate he and his right hon. Friends have made of the losses incurred by potato growers, particularly growers in Scotland, as a result of the Government's slowness in accepting the commercial judgment of the Potato Marketing Board?

Mr. Hoy: It is true that throughout the years the price in Scotland has always been different from that south of the Border. This is nothing new. With regard to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I am bound to say that all this was taken into consideration when the price was fixed at the last Annual Review. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman knows that it was as a result of this Annual Review that the price was increased.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if he had accepted the advice offered to him by the Potato Marketing Board earlier this year he would have avoided a great deal of dissatisfaction among potato growers as well as saving the taxpayer a good deal of money which he wasted by refusing that advice?

Mr. Hoy: That just is not correct. What we had to do was to wait to see how the prices were moving, and at the end of last year a support scheme was agreed to. In the early part of this year, when it looked as though the market might fall more, we were approached once again. My right hon. Friend then said that, if the market showed any sign of a further decline, he would enter into another programme. This he did, and gave approval for a further scheme of support buying which has brought the market back to its present level.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that the price paid to producers of potatoes is currently £12 to £14 per ton and that the price charged to the housewife is about £36 per ton; and what steps he will take to investigate the reasons for this price difference.

Mr. Peart: During the week ended 23rd March growers' prices of potatoes ranged between about £12 and £21 per ton according to variety and quality. Average retail prices in England and Wales during the same period were equivalent to about £31 per ton for white varieties and £38 per ton for reds; for different varieties in Scotland retail prices varied between £21 and £32. The margin between growers' and retail prices is not, therefore quite as wide as my hon. Friend suggests, particularly in Scotland; and in any case it is rather misleading to express the retail price in terms of £s per ton. These margins were examined by the Runciman Committee.

Mr. Hamilton: Is not my right hon. Friend concerned about the apparently outrageous disparity between what the producer gets and what the consumer pays? Does this not emphasise the need for the kind of inquiry that I asked for in my earlier Question, to find out exactly where the hundreds of millions of pounds of public money each year are going—whether to the producer or the consumer, or to the middleman, as I suspect?

Mr. Peart: As I have already said to my hon. Friend, what I think matters most in the future are proper marketing and a reduction in the costs of distribution. I am bearing these things in mind. Naturally, I am anxious to improve things. Horticulture is one subject which has still to be considered.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman repudiate the allegations of feather-bedding of farmers which are constantly being made by his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member should not be so touchy and sensitive. There is no question of an argument for or against feather bedding. As I have said over and over again, we have given support to the principles of the 1947 Act,

and the last Review, which is a £10 million plus review, compares very favourably with Reviews made under the Conservative Administration. The latest Review will enable farmers to have their incomes improved.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole thing is out of order anyway, and always was.

Sheep and Goats (Live Exports)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now give an estimate of how many of the 89,254 sheep and goats exported live in 1963 were exported for the purpose of slaughter overseas.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): All but about 2,000.

Mr. Shepherd: Does that Answer mean, therefore, that well over 100,000 cattle, sheep and goats are exported from this country annually? Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he considers this trade inevitable and whether he intends to take any steps to try to transfer this to carcase trade, which many of us think would be more desirable?

Mr. Mackie: Many of us, on both sides, were worried about the treatment that these animals received, and that was the reason for the Balfour assurances covering the five countries concerned. The Balfour assurances were intended to do the best we could and were a fairly good method of ensuring that cruelty was limited. It is difficult to answer the question about whether this trade is inevitable, but as a business man the hon. Member must know that if the customer wants the animals that way, unless something is seriously wrong they must be supplied that way.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would the hon. Gentleman take all the steps in his power to try to encourage these people to go on to the export of carcase meat and not of live animals, because there is a very real feeling of anxiety in the country about cruelty in this matter?

Mr. Mackie: I will certainly take into consideration the feelings of hon. Members and of the public in this matter.

Milk

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that adequate encouragement is being given to milk producers to maintain an adequate supply of milk for both the liquid and manufacturing markets; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peart: Yes, Sir. Liquid needs are fully safeguarded by the standard quantity arrangements. The surplus for manufacture this year should be almost 45 percent. of liquid sales. As the dairy herd appears to be growing, and having regard to the recent increase in the guaranteed price, there is no reason to suppose supplies will not be adequate.

Mr. Kitson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, as he was able to give only such a small increase to milk producers under this Price Review, the time has now come when he should free the price control to the Milk Marketing Board and give the Board a freer hand, because if the price goes any higher the demand will drop? Does he not think that the Milk Marketing Board ought itself to have the chance to control the price of milk?

Mr. Peart: I do not accept that, and, as the hon. Member knows, even my predecessor did not accept this. Apart from that, because of the increase we have given, relative to what was given on many other occasions since the scheme came into operation, the position is far more generous.

Mr. Monro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer will give serious concern to Scotland where there is a steady decline in the number of producers and where, indeed, the Chairman of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board has said the situation may well become critical?

Mr. Peart: There has been a decline over the last 10 to 12 years, but hon. Members opposite did not protest against it. All I am saying now, and what I think is right, is that, in view of the evidence and the analysis of the situation, there is no danger of a shortage, and hon. Members must not exaggerate.

Sir Richard Glyn: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the size of the

dairy herd shows signs of diminishing? Is he aware that the cost of milk production is rising so fast that many small milk producers who work extremely long hours consider that they would be better off if they sold out and invested their money in United Dairies shares which would give them more money to spend for doing no work at all?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept what the hon. Member has said. Indeed, what he is saying is really irresponsible, and he knows it.

Mr. Prior: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the increase in costs of milk production expressed as pence per gallon during the year 1964–65.

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what proportion the increase in the cost of milk production during the 12 months to the latest convenient date exceeded 1d. per gallon.

Mr. Peart: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to hon. Members who raised this question on 24th March.

Mr. Prior: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind about this Price Review that it is not just that milk prices are going up by another 1d. so much as the fact that a lot of producers now feel that, working, as they do, seven days a week and at the weekend, and long hours, and with all the troubles involved with milk production and looking after cows, it is not really worth their while being in milk any longer? As a psychological barrier is being built up, does he not think that the time really has come now for a bigger increase?

Mr. Peart: I accept all that the hon. Member has said about the seven-day week, but there is nothing new about this. This has happened over the years. Hon. Members opposite knew this last year, but there was no protest. The hon. Member talked about psychological factors. I agree that they are there. On the other hand, as I have said, I have given an increase and that increase, with the increase last year, means a valuable increase of 10 per cent. over two years, which is much higher than ever before. If I may just repeat the point, it means £9 million on the guaranteed price. The increase in the standard quantity means a further 2 million.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether he expects the farmers to get the whole of this enormous increase of 1d. and that the Board will be able to pay 1d., or does he expect it to be whittled away to 0·6 of ld.?

Mr. Peart: It will cover the increase in costs. This has even been admitted by the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board. I really think hon. Members should not exaggerate.

Sir M. Redmayne: It is not a question of exaggerating. The Minister says there is nothing new about the seven-day week in milk. That, of course, is true. What is new is that industry and the distributive trades are constantly getting better conditions than the farmers, and that is why they feel they ought to have a better reward for their work.

Mr. Peart: On the question of distribution in the industry, I have announced the setting up of an inquiry, and I shall make a report on this. It is a matter of obtaining a right balance. If we encourage over-production the effects on the small producer could be disastrous. The question is to have a sensible balance.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the workings of the standard quantity system in relation to the production of milk; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peart: At the request of the farmers' unions and the Milk Marketing Boards, the Agricultural Departments are reviewing with them the basis on which the standard quantities are set. I shall consider the present arrangements in the light of these discussions.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the world production of milk is no longer increasing and that world stocks of dairy produce are declining? In those circumstances, would he not agree that the home producer is entitled to a greater share of the market for manufactured dairy produce?

Mr. Peart: I have said that I am reviewing the standard quantities. I hope that the hon. Member will not panic. We have a 45 per cent. reserve.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the details of the negotiations of the Price Review are supposed to be confidential? In view of this, will he and his hon. Friend stop making misleading statements about the supposed demands of the N.F.U. for a 6d. price increase?

Mr. Peart: I accept that the details are secret, and I have not revealed them. I have said in broadcasts and in speeches that some members of the farming community have made an absurd demand of 6d. a gallon for milk, which would have meant £54 million to the consumers.

Dairy Farmers

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many Welsh dairy farmers have gone out of business during each of the last five years.

Mr. Peart: The number of registered milk producers in Wales leaving dairying over the last five years has been as follows: 1960, 464; 1961, 555; 1962, 742; 1963, 795; 1964, 903.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest information about the extent to which farmers are closing their dairies.

Mr. Peart: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 3rd February.

Mr. Digby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the first two months of this year the number of producers was falling more rapidly than ever, and that since the disastrous milk award there is evidence that plans already approved for modernisation of dairies are being cancelled? Is it not clear that there is a danger now that some of the big producers as well as the small producers may go out of production and that this will very much reduce the supply of liquid milk?

Mr. Peart: I gave the hon. Gentleman information, and I stand by it. This process had gone on for a very long period. We are giving an award to the producers which is a £11 million-plus award. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not"] It is no good saying that it is not; it is. The £11 million is made up of £9 million


in guarantee prices and £2 million in the increase in the standard quantities. It amounts to £11 million-plus. We argue that the award, linked with the last one, compares very favourably with previous awards. There is no need for the pessimism of hon. Members opposite.

Mr. David Griffiths: Has my right hon. Friend taken notice of the mass protests from the poor, impoverished farmers and compared this behaviour with that of the bare-footed Jarrow miners many years ago?

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: The right hon. Gentleman keeps on talking about increased awards to the farmers. Why does he not, in all fairness, say something about their increased costs?

Mr. Peart: I accept that, and I bear this in mind. But I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate the awards en bloc over the years. I have repeated the figures. I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has yet appreciated them, and perhaps I may read them out again: 1955, plus 0·75d.; 1956, plus ½d.; 1957, plus, ¼d.; 1958, minus ld.—there were no protests from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite then; 1959, no change; 1960, minus ¼d.—there was no opposition from the hon. and gallant Gentleman then; 1961, plus 0·8d.; 1962, minus 0·4d.; 1963, plus ½d. and 1964, plus 2½d.

Sir M. Redmayne: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that to reel off those figures without relating them to costs and production is useless?

Mr. Peart: Figures are useless only when hon. Members are not prepared to understand them.

Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most serious farmers will not share the extravagant claims being put forward by the Opposition—and by "serious farmers" I do not include the stockbroker, lunatic fringe, controlled loss element?

Wheat and Barley

Mr. Kitson: asked the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the estimated acreages of wheat and barley for the 1965 cereal harvest.

Mr. John Mackie: I would refer the Member to the reply I gave on 24th March to the hon. Members for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) and Lowestoft (Mr. Prior).

Mr. Kitson: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the substantial cuts in the guaranteed price of cereals this year will reduce the acreages for the next?

Mr. Mackie: No.

Sir J. Maitland: In a period where incomes are expected to increase in various trades and businesses throughout the country, has the hon. Gentleman made any estimates of the loss of income which will occur in the wheat and barley growing areas such as Lincolnshire, and, if so, what are they?

Mr. Mackie: Naturally, being a farmer I have made these estimates, and I have done what a lot of other farmers have already done, and that is just to look at how one could increase yields. The hon. Member gets a little impatient. All right, if he will just wait I will tell him how. Another half hundredweight of ammonia and better seeds will do the trick.

Mr. Sheldon: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the subsidies paid for grain are a direct subvention from the taxpayers to the farmers, and will not he further agree that, as far ahead as one can foresee, those grains will be available in other countries both in the quantity required and at a price very considerably cheaper than that here? Will he further assure this House that he does not intend habitually and indefinitely to capitulate to one of the best organised pressure groups in the country?

Mr. Mackie: I am afraid that I would not altogether agree with what my hon. Friend has said, although there is some truth in the point that he is putting.

Mr. Snow: On a point of order. When the last reply was given from the Front Bench on this side I saw certain Members of the Opposition pointing up to the Public Galleries. I ask your guidance in this matter, Mr. Speaker. Should we not ignore entirely persons outside this Chamber?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a breach of order not to, but it is highly desirable that we should.

Sir H. Harrison: May I ask the Minister whether he has considered that the cut in the price of barley will perhaps lead to more than the 4 per cent. legally allowed under the 1957 Act—that is, if the cut is taken together with the reduced subsidy on fertilisers, then in spirit it will be more than 4 per cent.?

Mr. Mackie: No. That would be a very complicated calculation and I cannot do it off the cuff at the present moment.

Meat Marketing

Mr. Wallace: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in his plans for meat marketing, he will include imported meat and offal.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to implement the proposals of the Verdon-Smith Report.

Mr. Prior: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now announce his plans for meat marketing following the Verdon-Smith report.

Mr. Peart: I will, with permission, answer this Question and Questions Nos. 20 and 9 together.
I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) on 24th March. I have now started consultations with the main organisations concerned.

Mr. Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is an urgent and important matter, particularly from the point of view of the balance of payments position? Is there any possibility of an early development of his plan, which will be welcomed by the very friendly and sensible farmers in Norfolk?

Mr. Peart: I am anxious to speed this up, and that is why consultations have already taken place.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that my Question No. 29 bears no relation to Question No. 13?

Mr. Peart: I did not say so.

Mr. Speaker: We are not doing very well, but I am the principal confuser. Mr. Gilmour to ask No. 14.

Small Farmers (Credit)

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to set up an agricultural credit organisation to help small farmers.

Mr. Peart: I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 51 of the White Paper on the Annual Review (Cmnd. 2621). This announces a new type of credit arrangement in the agricultural field, which will be supported by a Government grant in aid. This seems to have been warmly welcomed.

Mr. Gilmour: I agree with that, as far as it goes. Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it does not go as far as the First Secretary promised in his Swaffham speech on 17th July, 1963? As the deplorable agricultural policies of the Government have greatly increased farmers' overdrafts, and therefore made improved credit much more necessary, should not he speedily implement that promise?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman must realise that this is the first step forward for agriculture. Grant aid will be given of nearly £250,000. We have done this within six months of coming into office, and it is based on a long-term point of view. After all, we are going to govern for another five years.

Mr. Prior: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this in no way fulfils the electoral promise made by his right hon. Friend in that the cheap credit is not cheap? Is he further aware that it was promises made before the last election on those lines which led the farming community to expect rather better of the right hon. Gentleman than they have obtained, and that this is what all the noise is about now?

Mr. Peart: It is rather remarkable that people expect more in six months than they received in six years of Conservative administration. The fact is that we have acted, and nearly £250,000 will be allocated for this purpose.

Mr. James Johnson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the former Government, with or without a farmers' lobby


alongside them, did anything in this connection in the past years?

Mr. Peart: They did absolutely nothing for agriculture.

Marketing Schemes

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for the establishment of more producer marketing boards.

Mr. Peart: Proposals for marketing schemes under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1958, must come from the producers concerned. The Government stand ready to consider any further schemes submitted under the Act by agricultural producers.

Mr. Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the famous speech of the First Secretary before the election suggested the creation of a large number of producer marketing boards?

Mr. Peart: It must have been a famous speech, and the hon. Gentleman must have agreed with it very much, though subconsciously. We are doing something about orderly marketing. I have taken action. We are to have the Cereal Marketing Act, and we are hoping to have something in relation to meat, which is very important.

Mr. Bessell: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the opinion of the horticultural industry when he is contemplating the establishment of further marketing boards?

Mr. Peart: I will always bear that in mind. I remember the disaster of the previous Administration over the Horticultural Marketing Council which had no teeth, and the poor thing died.

Agricultural Co-operatives

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what direct financial help will be given in 1965 to farmers' co-operatives.

Sir G. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what grants and loans, respectively, he expects to provide for agricultural co-operatives during 1965.

Mr. Peart: We will be introducing, as soon as practicable, the arrangements out-

lined in the Annual Review White Paper whereby agricultural co-operatives will enjoy benefits parallel with those already available to horticultural co-operatives in respect of grants towards their working capital needs and of the backing of guarantees on loans made to them by banks. Grants to agricultural co-operatives under the Market Development Scheme will also continue to be available.

Mr. Walker: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some estimate of the amount that he expects to provide in grants during 1965–66?

Mr. Peart: Approximately £200,000.

Sir G. de Freitas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that co-operatives generally are very pleased with the interest that he has shown? Will he study carefully the suggestions made to him which show a preference for loans rather than for grants?

Mr. Peart: I will bear this in mind. I know that my hon. Friend has pressed this matter, and I shall carefully examine it.

Mr. Stainton: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House under which Administration that Act was passed to provide for these grants to be given?

Mr. Peart: It is true that grants were given to horticulture, but I felt that the agricultural industry needed this treatment as well.

Fertilisers

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the tolerances allowed on the analysis of fertilisers, with a view to introducing legislation to reduce them, in view of the more highly efficient methods of manufacture and the modern highly concentrated nature of the product.

Mr. John Mackie: The Standing Advisory Committee which is responsible for advising the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend on any amendments to the regulations under the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926, considered the tolerances for compound fertilisers—which comprise the bulk of the fertilisers used—as


recently as 1963 and decided that no change was necessary. If anyone considers they have fresh evidence on this matter, I would advise them, as the Department has already advised the National Farmers' Union, to bring it before the Standing Advisory Committee.

Mr. Jopling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this seems to be an example of the Minister getting out of his responsibility? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of the fertiliser which is principally used for cereal production, the limits of variation extend to the value of £2 12s. a ton, of which more than 17s. constitutes public money in subsidies? Is he further aware that in certain parts of the world, particularly in Holland and in certain States in America, tolerances are very much lower than in this country? Finally, is he aware that there is a certain possibility of manufacturers being able to produce to the bottom end of the scale limits, therefore taking unnecessary advantage over their customers?

Mr. Mackie: With regard to the first point in the hon. Member's very long supplementary question, the Minister is certainly not sliding out of his responsibility. He is acting under the advice of the Advisory Committee on this subject and the National Farmers' Union put forward certain suggestions which have been considered—[Interruption.]—if I could have a time of quietness to answer the Question, I am prepared to do so. To the point the hon. Member makes about other countries I would reply that we do not need slavishly to follow other countries. The Advisory Committee is available for advice in this matter. If the hon. Member has a cast-iron case to present he should put it through the union and it will be attended to.

Pigs

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will improve the guaranteed price paid to pig producers.

Mr. Peart: The guaranteed price and the level of the middle band in combination determine what producers' returns will be, and the two must be looked at together. We have raised the middle

band by 900,000, and, while the basic guaranteed price related to this higher middle band has been reduced by 1s. 7d. per score, the immediate effect of the two changes is to increase producers' returns on average by 11d. per score from 29th March.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that many farmers who produce pigs, instead of just talking about them, are well aware that their costs recently have gone up 25s. per pig and their receipts have gone down £2 and the net effect of the Minister's allegedly generous changes is in fact to depress the industry where pigs are produced.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member is being rather offensive, I think. Lots of people do not produce pigs and he does not either—that is why he is here.

Mr. Griffiths: I do.

Mr. Peart: You have somebody else to produce them—[Interruption.]—Mr. Speaker, if I could be protected from hon. Members, I should be grateful.

Hon. Members: Windy.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Minister requires any protection—it is the pigs. We are not getting on with Questions.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to refer to you producing pigs?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get on with Questions. Everyone will be so annoyed in due course that they did not get on with Questions.

Mr. Peart: In reply to the hon. Member, may I reply—

Sir H. Harrison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) does produce pigs. He has a herd of over 1,000 in Sussex. Is it in order to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot import them into a point of order.

Mr. Peart: In reply to the question which I was asked, if the hon. Member will read carefully the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, he will find


that he said that the adjustments for pigs were not out of line with what was required.

Mr. Griffiths: I should like to ask the Minister if he will correct the record and, in correcting the record, withdraw his statement that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds does not produce pigs. In fact he does.

Mr. Peart: I was only saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—that he employed other people to do the farming for him.

Sir M. Redmayne: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not yet Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make transmissible gastroenteritis in pigs a notifiable disease.

Mr. John Mackie: No, Sir. In spite of the considerable amount of research work done, we do not yet know enough about the disease to say whether control based on compulsory notification is practicable.

Mr. Gilmour: Surely to make this disease notifiable is the only way of investigating it properly. Would it not be better to act sooner rather than later?

Mr. Mackie: One has to have considerable knowledge of the whole situation before one can act. It is a big step to take to make a disease notifiable, such as we had to do in the case of foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever. A considerable amount of research is going on, and there is no lack of funds for it. If the situation develops—we have recently had outbreaks particularly in the hon. Gentleman's area—I take it that it will be in hand. It is not a question of acting too late; it is a question of acting when we have the right knowledge.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his plans to increase the profitability of the pig industry; and whether he is satisfied with the workings of the standard quantity system in relation to the production of pig meat.

Mr. Peart: The immediate effect of the changes we have made at the Review is to increase producers' returns, on average, by 11d. per score. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the

hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) on 24th March.

Mr. Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind that the pig industry is not profitable at the moment? [Interruption.] Having kept pigs for 21 years I ought to know, and I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is not profitable. Will the right hon. Gentleman also remember that the increase in the Price Review will not cover the increased costs, so will he do something, in a five-year programme for the pig industry, to strengthen P.I.D.A. and to secure better marketing as well?

Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that his right hon. Friend has supported what I have done. He said that it was just about right. Apart from that, there is the increase of 11d. per score.

Mr. Kershaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman get it into his head that this increase of 11d. per score is more than offset by extra costs, and that the raising of pigs is less remunerative today than it was? Will he understand that?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman should not get hysterical. Because of my decision to improve the position, it could well mean this year, another £3 million to £4 million.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that if the British pig industry is to supply as much high quality pig meat as the market wants it will still go outside the middle band, so ought not the upper level of the middle band to be increased still further?

Mr. Peart: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have improved the position. I have increased the middle band as well as the steps either side.

Agricultural Advisory Services

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to extend the agricultural advisory services.

Mr. John Mackie: Steps are being taken to strengthen the National Agricultural Advisory Service by some 50 posts primarily to give greater emphasis to the farm business management approach to advisory work.
My right hon. Friend also proposes gradually to extend the veterinary investigation service by setting up six more veterinary investigation centres and enlarging eight existing centres to serve as focal points for veterinary investigation services in each region.—[Interruption.] The agricultural land service is currently under review. I am sorry if the hon. Member had difficulty in hearing what I was saying, but he will have to take that up with his hon. Friends.

Mr. Morrison: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that farmers make first-class use of the advisory services as they now exist? Would not he agree that there is an increasing demand for better services, particularly in view of last year's Price Review, and will he say what sort of advice he would give to the advisory services on how to advise the farmers to overcome the disadvantages of the 1965 Price Review?

Mr. Mackie: I think I gave that advice to the hon. Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland) in answer to a Question a few moments ago. I do not think it would help Mr. Speaker to get on with Questions if I went into detail about how to increase production and the advice which could be given. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the use of the advisory services. It would behove all farmers to make far more use of the services, and the more use that is made of them the more we can increase the value of the services.

Sir J. Maitland: In view of the Minister's determination to run down good agricultural land as expressed to me just now in an Answer to a Question, may I ask whether he will take the advice of his advisory services?

Mr. Mackie: I can assure the hon. Member that I could produce findings from Rothamsted and from the Macaulay Research Institute to show that the application of artificial fertilisers does not run down the land.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hill, Question No. 22.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your advice about why Question No. 20 has been omitted.

Mr. Speaker: It was answered with Question No. 13.

Mr. Peart: I answered the hon. Member's Question.

Later—

Mr. Ian Gilmour: On a point of order. The Minister distinctly said, in answering Question No. 13, that he was answering it with Question No. 29—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I quite understand the inconvenience which has arisen. The Minister actually said "With Nos. 20 and 9", but a lot of people thought that he said "No. 29". That is why we got in a muddle.

Small Farmer Scheme

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what conclusions he has drawn from the review of the first three years' working of the Small Farmer Scheme carried out by his Department.

Mr. Peart: The great majority of small farmers who have received assistance under the Small Farmer Scheme have benefited. One conclusion which has emerged from my review of the Scheme is the importance of farm records as an aid to management, a factor which is to be reflected in the revised Scheme which I shall shortly be introducing.

Mr. Hill: I welcome the extension of the Scheme which the Minister has included in the Annual Review. Will not he agree that the whole purpose of the Scheme is to enable these small farmers to become as efficient as possible? If he accepts that, how does he expect those small farms which have taken advantage of the Scheme to find scope in subsequent years for extra efficiency so that they can bear their share—because it falls on them—of the £25 million which is annually deducted from the industry by way of increased efficiency? Does not this bear very hardly on the small farmer?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member must bear in mind that small farmers have been in difficulties for many years and I am trying to look at the Scheme differently. Instead of concentrating on field husbandry operations, I have said that I want increased managerial


efficiency. I have altered the acreage qualification from 100 to 125 acres. I have also altered the standard man days. This will bring in another 40,000 farmers who can qualify for grant aid this year of up to £1,000. I think this is sensible and it has been welcomed by the farming community.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the Minister aware that there are a number of fulltime farmers whose farms are too small to qualify for the Scheme? Many of them, in Scotland, are tenants of the Department of Agriculture. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do for these full-time small farmers?

Mr. Peart: I agree that here there is a problem and that is why I am asking for a special survey with regard to co-operation. I think that the co-operation of the producers is necessary. I am not sure how they can specifically be helped, I admit that. I have done this for the small farmers to bring in another 40,000. I hope to review the situation and that I shall be able to make an announcement.

Perishable Food

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will initiate legislative or other action to ensure that containers and packets of perishable food are clearly marked with the date of packaging.

Mr. Hoy: In its recent comprehensive Report on Food Labelling the Food Standards Committee examined this proposal but made no recommendation on it. We are now studying the large number of representations made on the Committee's Report before deciding on the form of new labelling regulations.

Agriculture (Finance)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will appoint an independent committee, or person, with wide powers to inquire impartially and objectively into the financing of the agricultural industry.

Mr. Peart: No, Sir. Financing is an aspect of the economic condition and prospects of the agricultural industry,

and these are reviewed annually. I see no need for an independent inquiry.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the consumer and taxpayer is getting thoroughly fed up with the way in which, year by year, hundreds of millions of pounds are poured into this allegedly private enterprise industry without anybody knowing just where it is going? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Indeed. Would my right hon. Friend refer to the editorial in the Financial Times of 11th February, which recommended to my right hon. Friend that Sir Eric Roll, now at the Department of Economic Affairs, would be an ideal choice of someone who is qualified to undertake such an investigation?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept what my hon. Friend says. I have always believed in the 1947 Act and its main principle. I believe that support to agriculture helps producer and consumer. Added to that, as Minister of Food, I have to bear in mind, obviously, the importance of the consumer. I do this and will continue to do it. That is why I want to improve marketing and that is why, when I make a decision about Exchequer support, I have to bear in mind not only the producer but the consumer. As for a special inquiry, I do not think that we need it.

Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs of the amount of the balance of payments which is saved by agricultural production?

Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend fully accepts this and has said so, and I do as well.

Mr. Orme: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that the consumer is very concerned about this annual pouring out of money, which is done in a closed manner between the National Farmers' Union and the Ministry concerned, and that there is a need for a public inquiry? Behind the facade which we have seen in the Lobby today there is a need for a public inquiry into the farming industry.

Mr. Peart: I said to my hon. Friend that I bear the consumer in mind. I said this and I stress it. I must balance, quite rightly, the producer and the consumer. That is what we have done.

Mr. Gower: Can the Minister reconcile his own assurance that all is well with agriculture, in the light of his proposals, with the hostility towards farmers and farming which is being expressed from the benches opposite.

Mr. Peart: I think that the biggest danger to the farming community is for hon. Members opposite to defend some of the irresponsible actions of certain farmers who have protested against the Price Review.

Sir M. Redmayne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was nothing in my hon. Friend's supplementary question which suggested anything of the sort?

Mr. Peart: I have never heard the hon. Member condemn the wild elements who are now seeking to take action which would harm the farming community.

Mr. Prior: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Lime Producers (Scotland)

Mr. George Y. Mackie: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are now to be taken to remove the difficulties for Scottish lime producers in the present lime subsidy scheme.

Mr. John Mackie: Representations by Scottish lime producers about the provisions of the Lime Scheme relating to lime imported into Scotland are being considered as part of the general review of the working of the Scheme so far which my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State now have in hand. All the interests concerned, including the farmers to whose benefit the subsidy is directed, are being consulted by us. Any changes arising out of the review will be incorporated in amendments to the Scheme which will be required in any case to give effect to the reduction in this subsidy decided at the Annual Review. The necessary instrument will be laid as soon as possible.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has been reviewing this for some little time now, that Scottish producers of lime suffer from

something like a 5s. disability compared with the English producers, and that this is no way to develop the north of Scotland or any other part? Can he say when this review is likely to result in action?

Mr. John Mackie: That was a pretty sour supplementary Question on lime.

Mr. Manuel: Quicklime.

Mr. John Mackie: We have not been reviewing it for any time at all. The review is actually tomorrow, so that answers the first and last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. As regards the middle part, the Lime Scheme, as he is well aware, is for the benefit of farmers and agricultural land. There were considerable abuses in the early scheme, and this flat-rate scheme was made to simplify the whole matter. It also added an element of competition to the supply and production of lime. I understand that the hon. Member's party is very keen on this element of competition, and I do not see why he should complain about it.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: I beg to give notice that, in view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

White Fish Authority (Discussions)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his recent discussions with the Chairman of the White Fish Authority.

Mr. Hoy: I have nothing to add to the reply given on 10th March to the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson).

Mr. Wall: Can the Minister confirm that Mr. Matthew is to continue as Chairman of the White Fish Authority and can he say when the Government expect to make a statement on the statutory minimum prices scheme?

Mr. Hoy: I have heard nothing to the contrary with regard to the first part of that question. Mr. Matthew has had a few meetings with me and nothing but friendly meetings have taken place. We


hope that, as a result of these negotiations, we shall very soon be able to table proposals to deal with the fishing industry.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my hon. Friend realise that the discussions referred to in this Question have an important bearing not only upon the fishing industry as such but on the ancillary industries and on the consumers and that, therefore, his statement should be expedited and elaborated?

Mr. Hoy: There are, of course, many people who depend on the fishing industry in addition to the catcher. There are many land-based establishments whose livelihood it is. We have also the responsibility to the consumer, but we think that within the next few weeks we shall be able to make certain announcements. After all, Mr. Matthew's proposals reached us only at the beginning of this year.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is likely that this report will be before the House between now and July?

Mr. Hoy: I would certainly hope that a decision will come before July.

Food Prices

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average increase in price of bread, meat, fish, potatoes, and flour, respectively, during the last quarter of 1964 and the first quarter of 1965.

Mr. Peart: The price of the large white loaf rose by about 7½ per cent. in the fourth quarter of 1964, and has not changed since then. There was a 10 per cent. seasonal rise in potato prices during the fourth quarter but there has been no significant change so far this year. The only guide for the other commodities are the sub-groups of the Index of Retail Prices up to February and I will, with permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Wall: Why is it that at a time when farmers are complaining about a cut in their income, the housewife has to pay more for a general range of foodstuffs?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that farmers are not getting a cut in their income, and so his allegation is wrong.

Following are the details:



(January 1962=100)


Sub-group
September, 1964
December, 1964
February, 1965


Bread, flour, cereals, biscuits and cakes
109
112
113


Meat and bacon
115
115
115


Fish
105
109
108

RAILWAY CLOSURES AND NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES' MANUFACTURING RESOURCES

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Tom Fraser): Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I will make a short statement on two aspects of policy in respect of railways, one of which affects other nationalised industries.
In my statement to the House on 4th November last, I explained that my policy on passenger closures was being developed in accordance with the Government's policy on national and regional planning. Now that regional economic planning councils and boards have been established for most of the country, I have decided to consult them about any proposed withdrawal of passenger services. Accordingly, as from today, where regional councils and boards exist they will be given full opportunity to advise me on the planning implications of any proposed closure for the regions with which they are concerned before I make a decision.
This arrangement will apply to all outstanding proposals published by the Railways Board on which I have not yet reached a decision and to all proposals which are published in the future. It will apply also to those not published, but referred to me to consider whether they are clearly unacceptable from the start under the special arrangement I announced in my previous statement.
This procedure will ensure that regional planning is not prejudiced by rail passenger closures and will ensure that, in those cases in which I decide that closures are justified, I have been able to take account of all relevant considerations.
As the House knows, I have also undertaken to make a further statement on workshop policy. This involves much more than British Railways workshops, although these are the establishments about which hon. Members have expressed most concern. The Government are convinced that not only the British Railways Board but other nationalised industries should be free to employ and develop their manufacturing resources to the best effect. We intend, therefore, as opportunity arises, to introduce legislation to remove the statutory limitations which impede the nationalised industries.
The reorganisation of the railways workshops is now almost complete and their modernisation well advanced. The removal of the restrictions will enable these national assets to be employed to the fullest extent.

Mr. Powell: While commiserating with the right hon. Gentleman on having failed to stop the leak in his Department, so that the second part of the announcement which he has just made was made known to the House through the national Press this morning, may I ask him two questions about the two parts of his statement?
On the first, as another procedure, another stage of procedure, is now to be added, will he do his best to ensure that this does not further delay the taking of decisions when these proposals come forward, so that there is not an extension of uncertainty?
On the second part of his statement, does he realise that there can be no real competition between private enterprise, on the one hand, and, on the other, corporations which are financed on public credit and whose losses are met by the general taxpayer and that such bogus competition can give no indication of whether the nation's resources are being used to the best effect?
If he is determined to persist with this kind of legislation, will he at least give the assurance that these activities will be accounted for separately upon a basis which enables the results to be realistically judged and appreciated?

Mr. Fraser: I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern about leaks. I saw a little reference in one newspaper

this morning to the second part of my statement and right away I resolved to do my best to see that Government security did not get quite as bad under the present Administration as it was under the last.
To come to the other two matters on which he addressed question to me: first, the other stage of procedure in regard to passenger closures. I should have thought that the other stage of procedure which I have mentioned is in keeping with the statement I made on 4th November last and is strictly in keeping with the promises which my party made to the electors before the last election.
It is even more important to get the right decision than to get a quick decision, although I do not envisage that the further consultation which I have mentioned will necessarily delay the decision which will be reached, because the consultation with the regional councils and boards will in most cases be made at the same time as the proposal for the withdrawal of the service is being considered under the procedure set out in the 1962 Act.
To answer the right hon. Gentleman's point about the workshops' freedom, I would just like to tell him that we are concerned to see that the nation's resources are properly and fully employed, and are seen to be properly and fully employed. The nationalised industries are at present free to purchase from private enterprise. Private enterprise is not free to purchase from the nationalised workshops. There have been many occasions when the workshops could have supplied a need in the community by the proper utilisation of the nation's resources, but were prevented from doing so, in some cases, by the limitations imposed by the statutes and in other cases by the limitations imposed by my predecessor.
The assurance which the right hon. Gentleman sought is an assurance which I am sure he will seek further when the legislation is brought before the House.

Mr. Popplewell: Is my right hon. Friend aware how much we on this side of the House welcome his statement and congratulate him on having made it?
To press him a little further, since he said that he will discuss the question of closures with the regional economic planning councils, do I take that to mean that he will discuss it not only with those


councils which have already been set up, but also with the councils which are planned to cover certain areas but which have not yet been established? Would he also bear in mind that there are certain areas—for example, in East Anglia and the South-West—which are not covered by economic councils and that these are equally important from the closure point of view? Will he have a further look at this matter?
Is my right hon. Friend aware how much we welcome his decision to give full commercial freedom to the railway workshops? Will he ensure that railway management takes full advantage of the statement that he has made? Does he contemplate making a further statement about land, and also about the sundries traffic on the railways, which has been so grossly neglected in the Beeching programme but which can be a very useful revenue-producing unit?

Mr. Fraser: The Government have in mind the problem of land to which my hon. Friend has referred, but, as he knows, this is a matter that goes far beyond the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport, or even of the Railways Board. It is a matter that must be dealt with more comprehensively and I should think that any announcement on it would come from one of my right hon. Friends.
I do not have it in mind at present to make a statement about the sundries traffic.
In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I shall consult the councils and boards in those parts of the country where they have been set up. The only part in which they have not been set up is the South-East. I will continue to have the advice of the Departments concerned—mainly, Housing and Local Government, Economic Affairs and the Board of Trade—and of all those people involved in the review that is being made of the South-East Study.

Mr. Webster: Does the Minister intend to consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs who, in 1960, in the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, which was then dealing with the affairs of British Railways asked, as Question 1444:
What you are saying is that"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As far as I can hear, that is a verbatim quotation from something, and that would be bad in a question, let alone on a statement.

Mr. Webster: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Did not the Minister's right hon. Friend then infer that prices quoted did not adequately cover overheads? Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us to what extent he intends to use the taxpayers' money to subsidise a nationalised industry against private industry?

Mr. Fraser: What I want to ensure is that the capital equipment provided with the taxpayers' money will be employed in the service of the nation.

Mr. Shinwell: Has not my right hon. Friend taken note of the fact that for many weeks now—indeed, many months—hon. Members opposite have, quite rightly and legitimately, asked that some restraint should be placed on the closure of branch lines? Now that he has satisfied them that the matter is to be properly reviewed, will he try to find an explanation for their protests?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Minister has any responsibility for finding explanations of that kind.

Mr. Bessell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will be widely welcomed throughout the country? Will he now seek powers to order the reopening of lines if this is advised by regional councils or boards, and if the permanent way is still in existence? Further, where boards do not yet exist, will he undertake not to authorise any further closures until councils or boards have been established? Finally, will he ensure that the information supplied to councils and boards by British Railways is factual and actual?

Mr. Fraser: I have no reason to believe that the Railways Board ever supplies information that is not, to the best of its knowledge, factual. [HON. MEMBERS: "oh."] I have no reason whatsoever to believe that. I must say that I think it monstrous to suggest that a great public corporation like the Railways Board will submit for the consideration of other public bodies deliberately inaccurate information.
I cannot undertake that no closure of a passenger service will take place until a


council has been set up. The interests of those areas in which councils have not yet been set up are being safeguarded, I hope appropriately, by the Government Departments concerned, and I will consult those authorities before reaching a decision. But, at the end of the day, the responsibility for deciding whether or not consent will be given is mine, and I must be willing to take it, and not put it off to some time in the future when a regional council and board might be set up.
The hon. Gentleman referred to power to reopen lines already closed. I must say that I am not satisfied that I would be serving the interests of either British Railways or the nation if I were at present to seek power to restore services that have been withdrawn. I would not wish to commit myself to seeking such power merely on the advice of one regional council. I would clearly take into account any advice given to me by a regional council, but I think that it would be foolish of me now to commit myself to accept any such advice of this sort if it were given.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed in Darlington, the home of the railways? As I am sure that he is aware that the railway workshops in Darlington are under sentence of death at the end of 1966, may I ask when he will be in a position to make a statement about the future of railway workshops?

Mr. Fraser: I do not think that I will be making a statement as to the way in which the Railways Board will decide its responsibilities in regard to the expansion or contraction of individual workshops in the country This really is a responsibility of management which I must leave to the Railways Board.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Brigadier Terence Clarke: Mr. Speaker, during the course of my speech on 29th March in the Adjournment debate on Niven Craig, I said that Lord Stonham had visited Craig in prison and had taken an extreme interest in this prisoner. The noble Lord has now informed me that he has never visited Craig, nor seen him, nor spoken to him. Also, he has never written to Craig, nor has Craig written to him.
In these circumstances, I can only express my profound apologies to the noble Lord, and withdraw unreservedly any reference to him in this matter.

BILL PRESENTED

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS

Brigadier Terence Clarke: Bill to provide for the making by employers of payments to employees in respect of redundancy; to establish a Redundancy Fund and to require employers to pay contributions towards that fund and to enable sums to be paid into that fund out of the Consolidated Fund; to provide for payments to be made out of the Redundancy Fund; to amend the Contracts of Employment Act 1963; to extend the jurisdiction of tribunals established under the Industrial Training, Act 1964 and to make further provision as to procedure in relation to such tribunals; to enable certain statutory provisions relating to compensation to be modified in consequence of the provision for payments in respect of redundancy; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Gunter; supported by Mr. Ross, Mr. Jay, Mr. Houghton, Mr. Cousins, Miss Herbison, and Mr. Diamond; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make new provision in substitution for the Anchors and Chain Cables Act 1899.
I propose to detain the House for only a few moments in seeking leave to introduce a modest two-Clause Bill which will, I hope, bring our methods of testing anchors and chains for British ships into line with modern needs. At present the curious situation arises that under the Anchors and Chain Cables Act, 1899, all manufacturers of anchors and chain cables are required to send such material over a certain weight to proving houses that were established under that Act.
The effect of that Act has been that firms manufacturing this equipment have to send it to these proving houses, possibly some considerable distance away, and possibly at quite considerable expense, even though those firms may very well have equipment on their own premises perfectly capable of being used for the purpose. To make matters even more complicated, these very same firms are entitled to use their own equipment in respect of the manufacture of anchors and chain cables for foreign order. A further complication at present is that foreign manufacturers of anchor and chain cables can supply them for British ships without complying with the requirements of the 1899 Act. Therefore, British manufacturers are placed at some considerable disadvantage against their foreign competitors in this regard.
The modest Measure that I seek leave to introduce would repeal the 1899 Act and replace it by giving power to the Board of Trade to make rules which would provide for the testing, marking and certification of anchors and chain cables for use on ships registered in the United Kingdom. The requirements will

be Just as stringent, but they will be enabled to be met in the firm"s own premises instead of the equipment having to be sent necessarily to the proving houses, as at present. It will continue to be done under proper supervision.
Under the proposals that I would wish to introduce the responsibility will be placed on the master or owner of the ship to see that these requirements are met, as is the case with other types of equipment for shipping. It will, therefore, be applied to equipment bought from abroad and so rectify the disadvantage at present suffered by British manufacturers.
I should say that these proposals have been long desired by a very wide range of interests concerned and there have been wide consultations about the matter over some years. The shipowners have sought for some time to get this amendment made. The main manufacturers have been anxious for this rectification so that they could use their own equipment if they desire. The Chamber of Shipping, the seamen's organisations, the Shipbuilding Conference, Lloyd's Register, the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association, and the fishing interests have all been consulted and would welcome the proposals I seek to introduce.
As far as I can see, this is a modest but useful way in which British manufacturers can be assisted and a rather out-of-date procedure brought up to date. I trust that the House will unanimously give me leave to introduce my Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Blenkinsop, Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Bagier, Mr. Snow, and Mr. William Wells.

ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES

Brigadier Terence Clarke: Bill to make new provision in substitution for the Anchors and Chain Cables Act 1899, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 9th April and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1965–66

CLASS V

VOTE 1. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £25,874,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; of the White Fish Authority and Scottish Committee; and of the Plant Variety Rights Office.—[£9,500,000 has been voted on account]

Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Short],— put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

AGRICULTURE (ANNUAL FARM PRICE REVIEW)

3.56 p.m.

Sir Martin Redmayne: I beg to move,
That this House notes with regret that Her Majesty's Government have so conducted and concluded the Annual Farm Price Review that severe damage has been done to the confidence of the farming industry.
The Motion puts into words a situation of which we are all unhappily aware. I say "unhappily" advisedly, for none of us, whether in opposition or in government, can view the present active discontent that is rife throughout the farming industry in any other spirit, although I must say that during Question Time I rather wondered whether one or two hon. Members opposite do not regard it with some pleasure.
It was an interesting commentary on the Minister's Statement on the Price Review that there has not been seen for a long time in the House such an upsurge

of hon. Members on this side seeking to put supplementary questions to the Minister. For that matter, not for a long time has a statement been received with such evidence of shocked surprise, almost of disbelief in the course of its making.
It was evident that the Minister himself expected that reaction. He betrayed his expectation in that he largely avoided answering the questions which I, for one, put to him, but, instead, reeled off a string of defensive comparisons with previous Reviews. Of course, earlier Reviews have been disagreed, though never so violently as this one.
The Minister knows—this came up again during Questions today, in respect of the milk settlement—that it is a weak defence simply to quote the figures for the increase in or reduction of guarantees without regard to the relevant statistics for each year of farm incomes, of costs, of the trends of production, and of the trend of the subsidy bill—particularly that, since it is accepted to be the common objective of farmers, of the Government and of all of us, to reduce it progressively.
The Minister knows, equally, that this year the award is made in the face of the highest increase in costs for eight years and at a time when the subsidy bill has fallen sharply for the second year in succession, following sizeable reductions in the two years before that. On these facts alone, which show that so much success has been achieved in trying to get towards our objective, the farmer had grounds for optimism as to the outcome of the Review.
Last year's settlement was held as being "electioneering". This has been said repeatedly by the Minister since he made his Statement, but it was, in fact, the proper culmination of a long struggle by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames) and his predecessors right back to Lord Williams of Barnburgh and Lord Hudson, who laid the foundation of post-war agricultural planning, which was taken over by the
Labour Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is perfectly true. The Minister cannot in fairness deny it. It was a long struggle, sometimes against the tide of farming opinion, but more often with it, to fit a prosperous agriculture into the pattern of the post-war economy.
Let me remind the House briefly of some of the stages of that struggle. The plans were laid in 1944 and there followed in due course, under the Labour Government, the 1947 Act, which both sides support, and what I might call the Williams era, a very successful era for the Minister of Agriculture, but, of course, a sellers' market of all sellers' markets. By the early 1950s the impetus of those years was failing and it fell to successive Conservative Governments to end rationing, to make food freely available to the consumer, to initiate a new emphasis on marketing, to replace the fixed-price system by deficiency payments and to give the long-term guarantees of the 1957 Act, as a partner to the 1947 Act, and to foster the long-term modernisation of agriculture and to start the small farmers schemes.
This was a tremendous programme over the years and in a sense the result was that it had too much success, leading to a threat of over-production in some commodities and a subsidy bill that was acknowledged to be growing too fast. We do not blush for this policy. It was a creative policy and it gave an active impetus to the farming industry at a time when it was badly needed. From there, following the 1960 White Paper, with the full agreement of the Labour Party, we have moved into the era of the standard quantity. Whatever criticism there may be, and whatever second thoughts on this commodity or that, my right hon. Friends achieved a noteworthy improvement in the situation overall, and over the last four years the subsidy bill has fallen without any unreasonable check to productivity.
I would remind the House of a sentence in the White Paper on Agriculture,Cmnd. 1249 of 1960, which was the pith of the whole of that policy, and, again, the Labour Party certainly did not dissent from it. The sentence reads:
Moreover, the Government and the Unions agree that, as the industry strengthens its competitive power and so advances towards its declared objective of reducing Exchequer support to the minimum practicable amount, it is right and proper that it should have the incentive and reward of an increase in its living standards.
These were important words then. They are important words now when so much has been achieved. The industry has every right to feel aggrieved that the

Government, in this Review, have not abided by the sentiments expressed in that White Paper.
The Review last year, far from being electioneering, was a reasonable reward for a great deal of co-operative effort between agriculture and Government. It is vital that that effort should continue. It is hard to see how it can continue in the atmosphere now ruling. But if one is compelled to talk of electioneering, the Labour Party, or some part of it—for right hon. and hon. Members opposite certainly do not all speak with one voice on this matter—have been electioneering in agriculture for a very long time.
Who would blame them? This is politics and it is not expressly their fault that agriculture is far too near the centre of politics. This is the fault of the system and many farmers and many politicians would wish that it could be otherwise. But if one is to talk of electioneering, what matters to farmers and to us is that the performance of Government when they arrive in office should match their electoral promise.
Here lies the root cause of the sharp reaction to this Review both in the House and in the farming world. I said that farming was too close to politics. What I meant by that is that it is a perfectly understandable view, held quite widely, that the Annual Review becomes too easily a dogfight. I have been interested for a long time in the possibility of a change and I would listen carefully, and would request my right hon. and hon. Friends to listen, to propositions for a longer-term review, but, of course, such a review must abide, and continue to abide, by the principles of the 1947 and 1957 Acts.
Experimentally, it could be biennial or triennial, leading up, if it should prove to be a successful experiment, to a five-year period. Any such experiment must contain provisions to ensure that contact between farmers and the Government is maintained—because this is of great value to the Review system and to the farming community. It is possible that there could be—and this could be discussed—some form of review tribunal which could meet as any situation arose during the review period.
Any such system, of course, must leave to the Government and to the House the last word, since the taxpayer's money is involved, but at least I see no reason why these propositions should not be discussed. I believe that if they were sensibly discussed, with open minds on both sides, they might well lead to a system which would be infinitely preferable to all concerned. I have no doubt that at some point in his reply the Minister will say that he is also Minister of Food. We have had this from him three times already today

Mr. David Ensor: Why not?

Sir M. Redmayne: And the right hon. Gentleman has said that he has a duty to the consumer.
This is a very worthy argument. It sounds very grand, but it is a bad point in relation to the level of guarantees because in real truth the higher the guarantee the greater the production. Therefore, the result must be a trend towards lower rather than higher consumer prices. I agree that the Minister's duty lies towards the taxpayer, and on that and on the need to reduce the subsidies bill we all agreed—Government, Opposition and the farmers.
On the question of milk, for which the Minister still has direct responsibility for the price, the right hon. Gentleman's attitude again does not ring very true. He says cautiously that the price will be up by ½d. a pint for four months, but I doubt whether he will express much hope that it will be reduced thereafter. If it is not reduced, how much wiser he would have been to take one bite at the cherry and given himself room for manoeuvre in this Review.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: I am sure that at this stage the right hon. Gentleman would like to say whether he dissociates himself not only from the threats made by sections of the farming community to deprive the community of milk, including children and nursing mothers, but also certain threats, which are perhaps more serious, against the person of the Minister himself. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to say that these wild threats cause alarm on both sides of the

House and he dissociates himself and his party from any of them.

Sir M. Redmayne: I do not accept for a moment that the terms in which the hon. Member expresses the present situation are in any way accurate or true. I have said publicly that the farming community will achieve its objects very much better by constitutional methods of discussion.
The Minister said that the Review must be accepted as economically necessary but that it contains a long-term policy. Its items of long-term policy include help for small farmers and stress on co-operation, on research, on marketing and on amalgamation. These, after all, are all evolutions of what we on this side of the House have set in train. The Minister knows in his heart that this Review is a holding operation, and a severe one at that, but it hides a great deal which has yet to be decided and disclosed.
The first page of the White Paper gives much cause for doubt about the future. It opens with a sentence which is acceptable enough:
Agriculture is one of our biggest industries, and, as such, must take its proper place in the national economic development plan which is now being prepared.
I should have thought that that sentence was redundant. The Government and their spokesmen are on record time and time again as stressing their allegiance to the Agriculture Acts in which the proper place of agriculture is most clearly defined. Indeed, they repeat their support for those Acts in the White Paper.
In the broader and more topical field, is there any doubt disclosed as to the rôle of agriculture in the statement of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) in the debate last year:
Our balance of payments problem would look absolutely impossible but for the tremendous expansion for which the industry is responsible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1964; Vol. 697, c. 1046.]
The Minister himself, after the election—to this extent, this is more significant still as he was then in office—said that, in view of the balance of payments problem, he would back the demand of the National Farmers' Union for a sensible expansion of the home market. Does he suggest that the N.F.U. has not been sensible in these matters? These words are important, particularly the words of the


Minister himself after the election, because they showed, or seemed to show, that the Government had considered the balance of payments point in relation to farming with great care, had overridden the arguments against it—the arguments are legion and are put from many sources to the Government—and had come to a firm decision, which the Minister was making public.
Yet the second sentence of the Review leaves us in the air:
The Government will, therefore, be considering in this context what contribution agriculture can best make to national economic growth".
This is a very different kettle of fish. I suspect that "Farmer George", who spoke so eloquently at Swaffham, in 1963, and again in the debate last year, is now completely "Mr. Economist Brown", and farming is in the melting pot. The economists have hailed this proposition as commendable, but, inevitably, it produces a loss of confidence in an industry in which confidence has ever been and, perhaps, will ever be, hard to come by. Inevitably, also, this pending consideration of agriculture's rôle puts a question-mark against the objective of the Review.
The next sentence in the Review reads—there is a good deal of this sort of thing on the first page:
… the Government have reached conclusions on certain lines of … development
and it is claimed that the Review is based on these.
In paragraph 3 we read:
… a primary objective … must be to encourage growth in productivity through:— (a) the maintenance of stability"—
But at what level, after further consideration?
The next reference is to
the further progressive introduction of technological improvement …
We agree well enough about that.
Next:
the encouragement to farmers generally to obtain the benefits of scale".
I ask that the House note the words "farmers generally".
The final reference is to
''the consequential further release of resources for use elsewhere in the nation's economy.
The first question one asks about those four subheads is: what is meant by

"farmers generally"? I take it to mean obtaining the benefits of scale over all. Next, what resources will consequentially be released? Resources of machinery, certainly, from amalgamations, and so on. But is it also meant to refer to further men from among employees and employers, the farmers? If land, what land? These are all most important questions, and they really put in the shadow the items in the Review which are claimed to be long-term, the Small Farmer Scheme, marketing, research, and the like.
For the answers, we have to wait to learn what contribution, in the Government's view, after further consideration, agriculture can best make to the economy. For the present, we have only uncertainty in these matters. Yet the Minister, in the past, has been, very properly, what I might call a long-term man. In an interview last May, he said that one of his first jobs, if he were Minister of Agriculture, would be "to thrash out a five-year or more policy for agriculture", and in last year's debate, with reference to milk, he said that he would like to see a "five-year policy".
Is l¼d. a gallon for milk against costs increased certainly by over 1d.—we cannot find out precisely what the figure is—to be classed as part of a long-term policy in accordance with the Minister's statements last year? It is in one sense, but a sense which does no credit to the right hon. Gentleman who has expressed so much concern for the small farmer. Many will find it hard to carry on. The Minister has said—he repeated it today—that he is fearful of over-production. The fall in the dairy herd has been checked and production is rising a little, but the Minister knows very well that l¼d. will not check the flight from dairying. Indeed, from such information as we can secure, it seems that it is already gathering way again. I suggest, therefore, that his fears about over-production have very little foundation.
One may then fairly ask whether the long-term policy in respect of milk is to cosset the small farmer with grants, which, in any case, he will not obtain for many months, but to drive him out of milk? The income from milk is very often for many men much more accurately described as the wage-packet


rather than the profit. This would be a poor trick, and I think more of the right hon. Gentleman than to believe that it is likely to be his policy.
The answer lies elsewhere, with his colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the 1d. is too little. I believe that he had some better figure in his mind and he was badgered, bullied, coaxed and cajoled by his colleagues on the Treasury Bench until they beat his judgment into the ground.

Sir Douglas Glover: Sold down the river.

Sir M. Redmayne: He knew that he would have difficulty with his Review. He knew, also, as we all know, that milk is very often the psychological factor which holds the balance between acceptance, however grudging, and an open break.
The Minister lost that battle. I express the hope that, if he has another and, possibly, more bitter battle to fight on the consideration of agriculture in relation to the economic plan, he will die in the last ditch for what he believes to be right—and or politicians the last ditch is resignation.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: Did not the previous Administration, in their Annual Reviews, except for election years, deal with the farming community even worse than the present Review? As we may be having a General Election, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister of Agriculture is being most brave as well as most handsome in his rewards to farmers?

Sir M. Redmayne: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I dealt with that point fully before he came into the Chamber.
So far, the Minister has convinced no one that he is right on milk. I realise that there are confidential matters here, but it is a pity, in this situation, when tempers are high, that he will not support his argument by disclosing the agreed figure for costs. He has, apparently, made some reference to a figure of 6d. brought into the discussion by the N.F.U.—this appears to be so, if the reports are correct—and if he could make that—

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I have not revealed what the National Farmers' Union submitted to me during the Review discussions. It would have been very wrong for me to do so. I completely deny what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Sir M. Redmayne: I accept what the Minister says without reservation, but I hope he will understand that I am taking this from what appeared to be perfectly straightforward reports in the Press. However, I think it a pity, as there is so much argument on the point, that he cannot tell us what the figure of costs may be.
Whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not, there could well be a milk crisis this year if we have unfavourable weather conditions. Those are not my words. They may have a familiar ring to the Minister. He spoke them himself last year. They did not turn out to be true, but they were uttered with reference to last year's increase of 2½d. Since then we have had a good farming year and the position is slightly improved. Yet, as we know, 5,000 dairy farmers have gone out of milk, and who knows what this summer will be like and, much more importantly, what fall in the dairy herd there may be in the next six or 12 months? I hope that the Minister will see the red light when it shows and act swiftly.
Milk brings me to beef, and in that phrase lies another good argument in favour of generous treatment for dairying and the maintenance of the herd. It also highlights another reversal of the right hon. Gentleman's beliefs. He is on record as having said that he would like to see a long-term flexible plan for meat, and if for meat, certainly for beef production. There is no need for me to labour the point. I have seen no opinion expressed that 4s. on beef will, in the present state of the market, have any long-term effect on production. The extension of calf subsidies, though useful enough, cannot be regarded as a major factor.
The Minister will know that the Fat-stock Marketing Corporation has already forecast a reduction, not an increase, of 3s. 8d. per cwt. arising from the revision of the scales of supplements and abatements; that is, a reduction in respect of


the price as it is at present. I am certain that the Minister ought to revert to what was his expressed opinion and should have given something which would have cost nothing in the Review—a long-term assurance that production of beef will be supported. I hope that he can give that assurance today. If he does not, we must assume that his hands are tied by other considerations yet to be decided.
No one can really say that the cut in fertiliser subsidies is particularly happy at present, when production of beef is required, and particularly perhaps because costs in the fertiliser industry are rising and, therefore, there is no reason to hope that there could happen what happened before when the subsidy has been cut—when there has been a corresponding reduction in price.
Turning to cereals, I am suspicious that the Minister has made the maximum cut in barley and wheat not because it is wholly necessary, but because it gives him £11 million under the alleged shelter of agreements made by the previous Government. The agreements guaranteed that the minimum import price arrangements shall not result in an appreciable distortion of the pattern of trade. Those words come from the agreement. But is there really an appreciable distortion of the pattern of trade at present.
Last year, 1964, was a good year with a good crop, and the crop has been well absorbed and the forecast demand is high. Imports are down below the average of the last three years, admittedly, and that is the factor which comes into these agreements. But how great has been the pressure from overseas suppliers? As we all know, they have had very good markets elsewhere. What has come into the country has been above the minimum import price. In those circumstances, I do not think that the Minister should have taken the view that he was in a situation in which a reduction of this sort was in any way compulsory.
I would ask what pressures were brought to bear on the Minister by the foreign suppliers and to what extent he sought to resist them? Or did he not try very hard? Did he take what seemed to him to be the easy way out with what he thought to be a good excuse and giving something of a bonus which he could use to offset other parts of the Price Review?
In support of that, I quote a statement Which the right hon. Gentleman made in the House rather than in the White Paper:
Cereal production has risen to a very high level … In consequence, we are obliged, under the cereals agreements on minimum import prices made by the previous Conservative Administration, to take remedial action with the purpose of restoring a fair and reasonable balance between home-grown nd imported cereals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 1289.]
I think that that sentence in the statement was something of a cheat. The Minister has since rather resiled from it. He has admitted now that he was very much more party to the agreements than the statement would imply. Although some cut was necessary, I doubt very much whether it was necessary to go to the maximum. I doubt whether this is a very good precedent to be created in the first year of a new scheme. The Minister ought to have been very much more careful to see that he gave the scheme a fair start.
I will now deal briefly with some of the other more general propositions in the Review. We do not criticise the schemes in aid of the small farmers. As I have said, the awards in the Review hit them hard and they will have a struggle to survive to reap the benefits of the schemes. I could say that it seems fair to say:
The Minister seems to suffer from schizophrenia, wishing, on the one hand, to give aid to small farmers, while, on the other, wishing to squeeze them Out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1964; Vol. 697, c. 953.]
That quotation betrays itself. I would not use the word "schizophrenia", because I am always afraid of not being able to pronounce it. Those were the right hon. Gentleman's words in the debate last year. I hope that they rest firmly on his head.
This Minister's schizophrenia would seem to be between himself as Minister of Agriculture and himself as a Member of the Cabinet. I think that that is the secret of all that has been going on during the last few weeks. The farmers would prefer him to remain permanently in the rôle of farmers' friend for which he cast himself before the election. It is a rôle which suits him very much better.
Nor do we quarrel with the Government's present proposals for agricultural credit. Of course, no one can say that


there is as yet any prospect of obtaining credit at reasonable terms. [Interruption.] I do not think that hon. Members opposite should intervene about that. Once again, too much was read into the statement and, once again, performance lags behind what appeared to be the promise. I should like to know what the Labour Party means by "reasonable terms". Does it mean special preferential terms, or was it just putting in a good phrase for the sake of political advantage?
It is a mistake in any walk of commerce or industry to believe that an inexhaustible supply of credit is necessarily the only answer to every problem. There can be over-trading in farming as in any other competitive enterprise. What matters more than the ability to obtain credit is the ability to service and repay the loan. That entails a far greater prospect of the retention of adequate profits than would seem to be envisaged in the Review or likely to arise from the longer-term consideration of agriculture's rôle which is promised in the White Paper.
Of course, we support any reasonable effort to improve marketing. By too slow degrees, every branch of commerce and industry in this country is abandoning the Victorian concept of selling and is realising that the problem is not how to sell what one produces, but how to produce what, by market research, one believes one can sell. As a nation, we have been appallingly slow to learn this lesson. In many respects the farming industry is showing a lead which others might follow.
In passing, I would note with some surprise that there is no mention at all in the White Paper of the World Food Plan, on which so many columns of HANSARD were used in the debate last year and on which the Minister of Housing and Local Government, at a Labour conference, expressed himself in terms so glowingly optimistic for the future of agriculture that it must have hung like a millstone round the right hon. Gentleman's neck ever since. He said:
A Labour Government would say to the farmers of the West, 'Produce all you can: we will get rid of it because the world needs it '.

They were fine words, but fine words butter no parsnips. We know that Dr. Boerma has had talks with the Minister of Overseas Development, and presumably the Government are continuing support for the World Food Programme, which was initiated by the previous Government. No doubt we are to understand that the more lavish promises of the pre-election era are also to be forgotten.
The amalgamation of farms which has loomed so much in the Minister's utterances since the Review is given a very cursory paragraph in the White Paper:
The Government consider that there should be arrangements to encourage on a voluntary basis the amalgamation of such land"—
land of marginal significance—
into viable and well equipped holdings.
There is little more than pious hope there. We have read that such land could be purchased by the proposed Lands Commission. At what price? Would it be farmed by the Commission, or sold to those better able to farm it, and at what price? Would it be sold to those most conveniently adjacent? If they were also in too small a way, would they get the necessary capital to play their part in the amalgamation?
Equally, if the scheme is to be voluntary, on what basis is the volunteer to be encouraged? Will the Government consider a scheme on the continental pattern which will give specific inducements to retire? This is an interesting proposition. Before we can judge it, we shall require something more specific than that short paragraph in the White Paper and I hope that the right hon. Gentlemen will tell us something about it.
In all these matters, in all the long-term items, such as they are, in the economic plan, I would like to be assured—as the industry must certainly be assured—that farming will not be the poor relation in social and industrial planning. The Review, by its terms at this time, has brought farming to a cross-roads. Much has to be considered in the national economic plan in the broad sense. The plan must take into account the population explosion and the need to house and to employ between 10 and 20 million more people at the turn of the century.
Coupled with these things are the problems of agriculture, a major industry in its own right, by the Government's own admission—an industry now beset with new problems arising from the incidence of intensive farming and the loss of valuable farm land, but, nevertheless, with a rising productivity record which often puts other industries to shame. The more often that is said, the better.
It may be that the pattern of farming will have to change over the next 10 years, that land used for farming may be less than what it is now and that the process of amalgamations, streamlining and intensification will be forced upon us by events to an ever-increasing degree. It may be that the rural pattern will change drastically. But is it too much to ask that, in all this unpheaval, agriculture should be an equal partner in planning and that the United Kingdom should not as a whole be condemned to becoming a vast suburbia because the rural voice is deliberately disregarded by planning which is urban and industrial in its conception?
The fault of this Review lies in the blow it has struck at the farmers' confidence at just the time when the future holds so many imponderables as to be in itself unsettling. It is clear that the Government have plans for agriculture that are yet to be disclosed. But is it clear that those plans will take fully into account the fact that rural England is still a vital and indispensable partner of industrial England, vital to its economy and vital to its health.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: And to the health of Scotland.

Sir M. Redmayne: Including the health of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and of Scotland.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: And of Wales.

Sir M. Redmayne: And of Wales, also. The hon. Gentleman has successfully destroyed my peroration.
This is an important question. I know that the Minister himself admits it to be so. I ask him to fight for agriculture and to say that he will fight for it. If he does, he may in time regain the confidence of the farmers. At present, he has lost it almost entirely.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): I am asked by Mr. Speaker to announce that he has selected the Amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister and the names of other right hon. Gentlemen, and no other.

4.35 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Frederick Peart): I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "with" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
satisfaction the Government's decisions following the Annual Farm Price Review which in its opinion are fair to both producers and consumers; and welcomes the Government's constructive proposals for the longer term future of the agricultural industry".
I want to say, first, how much I welcome the opportunity to debate, in a calm and constructive way, this year's Annual Price Review and the Government's agricultural policy. Too much of the talk of the past two weeks has been highly emotional and has paid little or no regard to the facts.
Even the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) denigrated the activities of a very famous Minister of Agriculture, Lord Williams of Barn-burgh. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The right hon. Gentleman said that the Agriculture Act, 1947, was the responsibility of some of Lord Williams' predecessors. I believe that it was the creation of Lord Williams and that it was the post-war Labour Government's responsibility. Part I of the Act was opposed by the then Conservative Opposition in Standing Committee.
I welcome this debate because it is plain that a very broad band of responsible public opinion supports the Review. I could give many examples, but let me quote only two comments. The Daily Telegraph, which is not a notoriously Left-wing newspaper, said:
Mr. Peart is right to stand firm on the need to balance the farmers' interests with those of the consumer and taxpayer in our stretched economy.
The Daily Telegraph wrote two leaders on the subject and both supported basically the policy that I am putting forward.
The Times commented:
In its main lines, the Review augurs well for the new Government's agricultural policy.
I could go on with quotations from the Financial Times, the Economist, The Guardian, the Statist, and the Observer.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite may decry these papers, but they represent a large section of informed opinion. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite know in their hearts that, in its immediate aspects, the Review is just and equitable to the farmers and to the community as a whole and that, in its longer term aspects, it outlines a progressive policy for the benefit of farming in the future.
But rather than admit this, the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe and some of his colleagues have felt bound to work up a synthetic indignation, although it passes my comprehension how the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath)—I am sorry that he is not here—could sign the Opposition Motion after all his activities over the past few years and what he did for the confidence of the farming community. The right hon. Member for Bexley utterly destroyed their confidence by trying to enter the Common Market on terms which would have thrown away the 1947 and 1957 Acts without compensating safeguards for the British farmers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite do not like the truth.
However, right hon. and hon. Members opposite are in a dilemma. Those who, with so little regard to the facts, attack the Review should explain why they did not similarly attack much tougher awards made by the last Government. For example, this year we are asking farmers to bear two-thirds of their increased costs and reimbursing them for one-third.
But in 1962, farmers had to absorb the whole of their cost increases of £19 million and suffer a further cut of £11 million in the guarantees. There was not a great outcry from hon. Members opposite against the administration of their own party then. Perhaps they can explain why they sat mute and inglorious and why some of them even welcomed the determinations then. Why the outcry now? I can only assume that they can be accused of playing politics with a great industry.
This brings me to the interesting advertisement of the National Farmers' Union, which many hon. Members will have read in the last few days, and to the brief which the N.F.U. has supplied to all

hon. Members. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite have been so naëve as to accept these figures so uncritically. These advertisements form a scathing attack on the previous Administration. Time and time again the farmers refer to their 1 per cent. increase in real incomes over 12 years. Who is responsible?
I think that it is fair to say that the picture painted in the advertisement is not as bad as has been suggested, for if a somewhat different period had been chosen, the figures would have been rather different. For example, over the last 10 years there has been an increase in the real income of the industry of about 17 per cent. But whatever actual figures one takes, the criticisms of the farmers form a telling indictment not of this Government, but of the Tory Administrations over the previous 12 years who failed to deal with the fundamental problems of the industry.
Let me deal with the incomes of farmers and turn for a moment to the general question of the income of the industry.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: Mr. George Y. Mackie (Caithness and Sutherland) rose—

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity. I have answered many Questions about the Review and I have not shirked any. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech.
The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe has called attention to statements and assurances of support for farming by myself and my right hon. Friends before the election. We stand by those statements. We want the income of the industry to improve on a lasting basis. It is now the highest ever, and there is no reason why it should not go even higher. In particular, we would like to see an improvement in the incomes of those sections of the industry which are in particular need, but we cannot be expected to solve the industry's problems after less than six months in office, especially in the light of the very difficult national economic circumstances which we have inherited.
Nevertheless, our award this year of plus £10 million gives the farmers an opportunity to increase their net income further next year. I again quote the
Daily Telegraph.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Oh.

Mr. Peart: Why not? Do not let us run down the Daily Telegraph. In view of his experience, apart from pig producing, the hon. Gentleman should be the last to do so. The Daily Telegraph said:
Apart from Election years, the award compares favourably with those made in recent Annual Reviews.
Hon. Members who are objective and sensible will see when they compare this with previous reviews over the last eight, nine or 10 years that the Daily Telegraph is abot t right.
Admittedly, we have asked the farmers to bear a considerable part of their increased costs, but in the present national economic circumstances, despite what hon. Members opposite say, we must ask that of every industry.

Hon. Members: The Post Office?

Mr. Peart: Many of the criticisms—

Hon. Members: The Post Office?

Mr. Peart: Many of the criticisms which I have received—[Interruption.] Hon. Members will not even let me finish my sentence. Many of the criticisms which I have received say that farmers
must be recouped for all their costs, but in our present circumstances no industry can expect to work on a cost-plus system, and agriculture cannot be an exception.
However, in considering the income problem it is necessary to be clear that the figures of overall income used in the Review, and quoted by the farmers, indicate only the trend of the overall income position in agriculture. What the figures do not show is how that income is spread throughout the industry, and this is an aspect of fundamental importance if we are to find a long-term solution to the problems which we are facing.
I therefore want to spend a few minutes on analysing the problem. The right hon. Gentleman tried to do this in part of his speech, and I give him credit for it. I want to analyse the split of the industry into its different parts, as has been done in broad outline in paragraph 6 of the Review White Paper.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: Mr. J. M. L. Prior (Lowestoft) rose—

Mr. Peart: Let me emphasise—

Mr. Prior: Mr. Prior rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) must resume his seat.

Mr. Peart: Let us analyse the industry. About half of our 450,000 holdings produce only about 10 per cent. of the industry's output and consist for the most part of small acreages, generally well under 20 acres. Even if we doubled or trebled the level of the guaranteed prices, we should not be able to ensure an adequate full-time livelihood for the occupiers of most of these holdings. Fortunately, most of them are part-time and have sources of income outside farming.
About one-quarter of our holdings consist of full-time farms of up to 125 acres. These are the small and medium-sized farm businesses giving full-time employment to one or two men. They are the farms to which, in the first instance, we are directing additional help, because they have a potential for progress. With the help which we are giving to improve farm management and in other ways, many farmers on these holdings will be able to increase their incomes substantially and so obtain a satisfactory livelihood. Some may not be able to do so and we shall be considering other ways of dealing with the problems which they raise.
There remains the last quarter of our holdings. These holdings are in a very different category. They include the largest farms and produce about 70 per cent. of the industry's total output. I can best indicate the main features of this crucial holdings by some figures which relate to England and Wales. About 30 per cent. of all holdings, or 100,000 out of the 335,000, comprise about three-quarters of the agricultural land, produce about three-quarters of the milk, beef and sheep and nearly 90 per cent. of the cereals. The extent to which a relatively small number of farms dominate the general picture is shown by the fact that about one-quarter of all the wheat, barley, potatoes and sugar beet grown in England and Wales comes from less than 1½ per cent. of the holdings, about 4,600 holdings.
From this analysis it will be clear that it is a mistake to regard agriculture as one single unit. We must consider the problems and needs of the different parts of the industry. It was this failure to analyse the different problems of the different sections of the industry which was the mistake of the previous Administration. Hon. Members who have studied the problem will accept my analysis and agree that the previous Administration paid too little regard to where help was most needed.
The bigger and more efficient farmers, who account for most of our production, were receiving most of the subsidy payments and found it profitable to expand. Exchequer subsidies consequently increased. For this reason, right hon. Gentlemen opposite found it necessary to introduce for one commodity after another standard quantity or other regulatory devices to check the cost of the Exchequer bill. This was done for milk in 1954, potatoes in 1959, pigs in 1961, eggs in 1963 and cereals in 1964. I do not say that these steps were unnecessary under the Agricultural policies of our predecessors, because the country could not have afforded to go on finding more and more money from the taxpayer or the consumer.
But the effect has been that as productivity has increased in the most efficient section of the industry production has expanded above the standard quantities. This has automatically depressed the price for all producers. For many commodities an undue increase in the guaranteed price, which triggered off an expansion in production by the bigger and more efficient producers, would merely have the effect of depressing producers' prices and hurting those who are most in need of help.
The nation cannot afford the vast increase in Exchequer and consumer expenditure which would be involved in abolishing standard quantities or in raising them substantially. I hope that hon. Members will see the wisdom of what I am emphasising. These restraints need to stay until we have been able to encourage the improvements in the productivity, organisation and structure of the industry which will get us out of the dilemma with which we are faced. This is what we are seeking to do.
The across-the-board approach of the previous Government does not make the best use of Exchequer expenditure in support of agriculture. The right way is to look at the industry in its component parts and to give more help where it is most needed and can do most good. Our policy is to supplement the general support provided by the price guarantees through schemes of direct support where it can do most to maintain a stable and efficient industry. In other words, we are tackling the low income problem at its roots. I was glad to see The Times today took exactly the same line, and I hope that hon. Members opposite have read what it said.
I come to commodities and, first, milk. The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe spoke about lack of confidence in the industry. I hope that he will bear in mind that the price of dairy cows is rising. In recent months they have been selling at higher prices than ever before. I do not accept that there is lack of confidence in the industry. The commercial dairy farmer takes a much more objective view than hon. Members opposite.
Against this background, I should like to speak about this year's Price Review decisions. Milk is the most important. I admit that the decision on milk was the most difficult of all. If anyone does not think that decision difficult, he is a fool. It is not a case of just simply giving, as some farmers have demanded, and still are demanding, an extra 6d. a gallon—an extra £50 million on the housewife. We must balance trends of supply and trends of demand; we must balance the interests of the producer and the interests of the consumer. The decision requires a considerable degree of cool and unemotional judgment.
Let us begin with the facts. Production exceeds liquid consumption by about 750 million gallons. There is, therefore, a reserve of about 45 per cent. over our liquid consumption requirements. The number of dairy farmers has been declining steadily for the past decade and continues to do so. But this reflects a structural change in the dairying industry The important thing which I want to stress is that the decline of the national dairy herd, which had been taking place for a year or two, has been halted. The fall in production in 1963–64 has been reversed, and every week from last


November onwards has shown a higher production than the corresponding week a year before.
In the face of all these facts, the Government decided that the right balance would be maintained if the dairy farmer, after taking into account all his increased costs, was then given a bit more profit in addition. The dairy farmer's price has been effectively increased by nearly 10 per cent. in the past two years. Again, I say to those who attack this year's increase of 1d. per gallon as derisory, "Why did you not attack the awards in every year up to last year, since this year's increase is bigger than any of them?" Why have hon. Members opposite not done this?
Why did not the Government give in to the farmers' demands to be given much more on milk? I have already explained that the increase we did give will increase profitability. I have already explained that we have a reserve of production of 750 million gallons over our liquid requirements. Those who talk of the rationing of milk know they are being deliberately alarmist, and that the facts do not support them.
Too big an increase in the guaranteed price could easily lead to a flood of milk surplus to what is needed for the liquid market. The lower prices received for this surplus would reduce the average price received by the farmer. Farmers will remember that as recently as 1962–63, when there was a surplus of 840 million gallons, the pool price was 34d. per gallon, nearly 4d. less than the guaranteed price. With the better balance of supply and demand achieved since then, and with the increase in the guaranteed price, farmers were receiving a pool price of 38½d. per gallon in 1964–65, even before this year's increase of ld. per gallon.
None of us wants to get production right out of balance again. The small farmer is the one who would suffer most from the over-stimulation of milk production. Often his opportunities for expanding his milk production are limited, but he would have to bear the full brunt of the reduced pool price. Therefore, too big an increase in the guaranteed price would have hit the housewife who would have to pay more for her milk, in the long run the farmer would have lost by

the fall in the pool price, and it would have been bad for the national economy, too, in that it would be a waste of resources.
The increase we have given represents a fair reward to all reasonably efficient dairy farmers. But we recognise that some smaller milk producers have low incomes. We are, therefore, giving direct help to improve their position. We are doing this through the change in the character of the Small Farmer Scheme and its extension to 40,000 more farmers, many of whom will be milk producers. They will benefit too from the extension of the calf subsidy and the increase in its rate. They will also benefit from the help we are giving for agricultural credit.
Let me deal with another commodity—eggs.

Mr. William Yates: Mr. William Yates (The Wrekin) rose—

Mr. Peart: In this case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Windy."] I am not windy.

Mr. John Farr: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Minister to read non-stop from a prepared Ministry brief without taking any notice whatsoever of the feelings of hon. Members on both sides of the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is quite in order, and, indeed, not unusual, for an hon. or right hon. Gentleman to take no notice of the feeling he is arousing on the other side of the House, and hon. and right hon. Members traditionally may make use of copious notes.

Mr. Peart: I think that right hon. Members opposite will know that this is a statement which has been carefully prepared and which will be read outside. I am trying to give the House figures and to present the facts. Hon. Members can make their speeches later. I have not shirked any questions or criticisms. It has been a common practice of some back bench Members to use this as a deliberate device to put a Minister off, and I am not going to fall for it.

Mr. William Yates: Mr. William Yates rose—

Mr. Peart: If I thought that a responsible Conservative would like to ask me a question, I should allow him to do so, but I do not regard the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates)


as being responsible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Opposition Front Bench can intervene at any time.
Let us look at eggs. In the poultry industry there have been particularly marked developments in the technology of production. Poultry flocks have been getting bigger. These changes have led, and are still leading, to big reductions in costs among efficient producers. They have also caused an expansion in production and a big increase in Exchequer subsidy. As hon. Members know, this subsidy is now running at over £33 million. This is a considerable amount of money.
Here again, surplus production drives down market prices and, therefore, producer prices. We had to try to ensure that we did not encourage another big surplus. Anything less than the cut which we have made of 1d. per dozen would have been irresponsible. I therefore ask right hon. Members opposite whether, in these circumstances, they would have done differently.

Mr. William Yates: On a point of order. Would it be within the rules of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the Minister, when making a speech like this, to issue it in the OFFICIAL REPORT the
day before?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order. I hope that hon. Members will not interrupt a serious debate with bogus points of order.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member's intervention proves my earlier point. I am prepared to give way to anyone who makes a sensible contribution.

Mr. Timothy Kitson: Mr. Timothy Kitson (Richmond, Yorks) rose—

Mr. Peart: Does the hon. Member wish to ask a sensible question?

Mr. Kitson: Yes.

Mr. Peart: Then I give way to the hon. Member.

Mr. Kitson: Having disagreed with a lot of what the Minister has said, I am grateful to him for giving way.
I hope that before he leaves the question of milk, he will mention the manufacturing trade of the milk industry,

because it would be quite wrong to consider only liquid milk and not the manufacturing side. I and many hon. Members have constituents who are engaged in the production of butter and cream, for example.

Mr. Peart: I am glad that I gave way, because that was sensinble contribution. Obviously, in the 45 per cent. reserve which I have mentioned, cream and milk for cheese have also been taken into account. There is no need to panic about milk production in view of the fact that there is a 45 per cent. reserve. I agree, however, that we have to bear in mind also dairy products, which come within this section. This was taken into account.
I have mentioned eggs and the large subsidy and the reason we took action. I ask hon. Members opposite what other action could have been taken? Mention has been made of the changes in the industry, but, here again, what we need is orderly marketing. This is a problem which we are discussing with the farmers' unions and with the Egg Marketing Board. I hope that we may be able to reach an agreed conclusion soon.
The picture concerning beef, to which the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe referred, is different. We find ourselves in a situation in which home production of beef is not contributing as much as it could to our requirements; I accept this. However, we will not rush to the opposite extreme. Our aim is a moderate expansion in production. Beef is inevitably a long-term enterprise and we are determined to give producers all encouragement. Hence the range of measures we have taken which will help the rearer and feeder.
I emphasise that we have raised the guaranteed price. We have increased the calf subsidy rate and extended the subsidy so that it is paid on heifers of dairy breeds when they are slaughtered for beef. And we have increased the rate and the stocking ratio for the hill cow subsidy. Altogether, these measures come to approximately £8 million, which is important, adding 6s. on the guaranteed price.
We believe that these steps will provide the incentive for the expansion we want in beef production—without the


danger of over-supply after, say, another four-year period. Again, I would like to know just what right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have done in the circumstances.
I was asked about pigs and I should like to say just one sentence—

Mr. George Y. Mackie: Before he leaves the subject of beef, will the Minister say whether he has looked into the future—as he believes in planning, I am sure that he must have done—and whether he considers that there is any possibility of an over-supply of beef in four years" time?

Mr. Peart: I am looking into the future. Obviously, the market could change. There has been a strong demand because of the European and world conditions and high prices in this country, and we have faced a shortage because of curtailment of imports. I am looking at the long-term question and, therefore, what I have done immediately is right. But I also want to think in terms of marketing, which is linked to this question, and the creation of a statutory meat commission which would help the producer from a long-term point of view.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Mr. R. E. Winterbottom (Sheffield, Brightside) rose—

Mr. Peart: Will my hon. Friend wait a moment so that I may complete my reply to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie), of the Liberal Party, who is a responsible farmer? The hon. Member will, I think, agree that to link a guaranteed price policy and marketing is the right way to approach the problem.

Mr. Winterbottom: In view of the need for the production of more cattle for home consumption and the increase in the subsidy for heifers, will my right hon. Friend consider seriously whether there should be a limitation on the sale abroad of heifers which have been eligible for the subsidy?

Mr. Peart: That is another problem. I have watched carefully the increase in exports to Europe and elsewhere and do not see that these represent any immediate danger to our own meat supply

position. I hope, therefore, that this question will not be exaggerated.
I have just one sentence on pigs. I see that the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe has said that
The adjustments for pigs were not out of line with what was required".
That, I think, is generally accepted. I cannot remember when this most complex of commodities aroused so little dispute, although I know that some hon. Members have been critical.
I turn next to cereals, the last commodity which I wish to consider in detail. Here again, there have been criticisms, and the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe devoted part of his speech today to this subject. Once again, what are the facts? For many years, technical efficiency in cereals production has been increasing by leaps and bounds. The average yields of wheat and barley have risen by over 40 per cent. and over 30 per cent. respectively in the last ten years. During the same period, mainly as a result of increased mechanisation, the number of man-hours required per acre of wheat and barley have fallen by about 40 per cent.
All this has made cereals a very profitable line of production for the bigger producers. That is accepted. This is shown by the continuing increase in the barley acreage in recent years, and the rapid increase in production of both barley and wheat. The result has been a substantial rise in the Exchequer bill for cereals from just under £30 million in 1956–57 to an estimated £70 million now. This is a considerable amount.
It is no wonder, therefore, that even a Conservative Government in 1964, in order to contain the Exchequer liability, introduced the standard quantity and target indicator price arrangements. This means that the more that production exceeds the standard quantity, the lower is the producers' return per ton.
But there is another important aspect to the cereals picture. Last year—I have referred to this time and time again in reply to Questions—the previous Government entered into a series of agreements with our principal overseas suppliers on minimum import prices which put a floor into our market for cereals. Under those


agreements, the then Government undertook
… to maintain a fair and reasonable balance between home production and imports".
To do this, the then Government promised
… to restrain financial assistance so as to discourage the increase of domestic cereals production above a level consistent with these objectives".
That was the price of the minimum import price system. The then Government then undertook that if our total imports of cereals showed an appreciable decline below the average volume of the three years to 1st July, 1964, they would—I quote, to show I am not exaggerating—
take effective corrective action at the earliest practicable time to remedy the situation".
I accepted this principle when I was in opposition. I accept this, and in the decisions in this Review we are honouring the obligations in that agreement. I want to ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite: would they have broken the agreement? I have heard talk of unlimited expansion of cereals production. Would they have broken the agreement which they signed? Of course not. They know that no responsible Government could have done so.

Sir M. Redmayne: As I see it, it is not a question of breaking the agreement. It is a question of interpretation. What I say is that the right hon. Gentleman has interpreted the terms too harshly.

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman really must know that the then Government, in their own White Paper, spelt out the figures. I do not want to weary the House too much with quotations, otherwise I shall be accused again by hon. Members opposite of reading, but if hon. Members will read carefully the White Paper they will see that the agreement was spelt out in paragraph 6:
The Government of the United Kingdom have decided that any necessary restraint of the financial assistance should be applied through the effective reduction of guaranteed prices by means of the price mechanisms described in the United Kingdom"s White Paper on the Annual Review for 1964–65.
Right hon. Gentlemen cannot escape responsibility. They know very well that any Government were bound in honour to make the decision and that if imports were reduced below a certain level action had to be taken.
What, in fact, has happened is that as a result of the profitability of cereals growing our home cereals production has leaped up and this year our production of wheat and barley will amount to 11 million tons, about 2 million tons over the average of the previous three years. This increase in cereals production has not only taken up the whole of the growth in domestic consumption, but is likely to reduce imports by about 800,000 tons below the three-year average. That is the extent to which we have failed to meet our commitment, and that indicates the magnitude of the corrective action we must take to honour our obligations. So I again ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite: would they have honoured the obligation they entered into less than a year ago? They have hinted—the right hon. Gentleman has hinted—at a more modest cut, but it would not have sufficed to meet those obligations. So we have done what we believe to be right, and we have acted in the letter and the spirit of the agreement.
These cereal agreements were accepted and agreed however not only by both sides of the House, but also by the leaders of the National Farmers" Unions. They accepted these agreements because they believed that this would mean price stability in the home market through the minimum import price mechanism; this was the price for obtaining a reasonable balance between home production and imports; this was the price certainly of restraint of financial assistance for home production if it grows so large as to take more than its fair and reasonable share.
I put now to the farmers" leaders, who are saying that it makes no sense to restrain home production, a direct question. Do they now wish to denounce those agreements with our overseas suppliers? They cannot have it both ways. I say to the Opposition and to some farm leaders that there must be no double talk on a matter so important.
I come to the question of the balance of payments. All this leads, naturally, to consideration of the rôle agriculture must play in our balance of payments situation. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right to stress this. He referred to my own speeches and those of my hon. Friends on this matter. I think that there has been much emotional talk on this subject, with little regard to the


facts. Of course home agriculture is a very substantial import saver and makes a valuable contribution to the balance of payments. We have had this fully in mind at the Review. I have always said this. Where appropriate, as in beef, we are encouraging the expansion of home production which should help directly in relation to our balance of payments, but we have not fallen into the error of supposing that there would be further help to the balance of payments if we had an utterly indiscriminate expansion of output. There are hon. Members suggesting this to me this afternoon.
For example, it would obviously be no good producing more eggs or potatoes or milk for liquid consumption where we are self-sufficient. It would not necessarily help the balance of payments to produce more of a commodity at home if this meant that some of our overseas suppliers could no longer buy our exports. We must also take account of our international agreements. These are not one-sided: they have advantages for us as well as for our suppliers. So those who say expand output here at all costs regardless of circumstances must explain what they would do where we already have all we want of a commodity. I ask this: what would they do where the cost to the community of extra production is too large?
I have already referred to the fact that the subsidy bill on cereals will cost £70 million this year. If we abandoned standard quantities and the minimum import price system what would the subsidy bill be for cereals? Who knows? It is anyone"s guess. It would be considerably higher. No responsible Government can think in terms of indiscriminate expansion. To condemn unlimited, uncontrolled expansion of output, whether wanted or not, is not, however, to be negatively restrictionist. I have always said and I repeat it again—my speech was quoted by the right hon. Gentleman—that I have always looked for sensible expansion of home production. Hon. Members who will look through all my speeches will see that over and over again I have said this to be right and I say this here today, that I want this sensible expansion.
Our home market, after all, is an expanding one. Our own farmers must have the opportunity to share in this steady

expansion of the industry and to play their part. I do not regard the industry as a second rate industry; I do not want the industry to be the Cinderella of our economy. Of course not. I want it, as an efficient industry to have its rightful place in our national economic life. This is the aim. The increase at this Review of standard quantities of wheat and barley and the sharp increase we have made in the middle band for pigs show how this can be done. Our farmers can capture an even greater share of our market if they improve their efficiency in production, in marketing, and in meeting consumer demand.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I only wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman to make this plain. Does he not see that his interpretation, when he was in opposition, of what is a sensible price seems to be very different from what he thinks it is now that he is in the Government?

Mr. Peart: No. I think that I have explained that. I want an expansion of home production, but where we are self-sufficient it would be absurd to have unlimited expansion and expenditure of public money. I have spelt this out. The hon. Member who was once at the Ministry of Food, knows that very well.
We have it on the right lines. Our home farmers can capture an even greater share of the market by improving marketing and meeting consumer demand. Whatever the commodity, beef, cereals, bacon, for example, there is every reason why our producers should increase their share of a growing market provided that they can become more competitive with other suppliers. Our policies are designed to help them to do that. I see considerable scope for expansion at home, and this will come about.
My last main point is on the longer-term aspects of policy. This I regard as one of the most important parts of the Review—the constructive proposals which were set out in the White Paper for the long-term development of the industry. Those who have not allowed their emotions to run away with them will have recognised the importance of the long-term proposals. What we have begun to do in this Review is precisely what right hon. Gentleman opposite failed to do when they had opportunities


to have a long-term approach. We are tackling the fundamental problems of organisation and structure which they completely neglected. True, they made a belated start in relation to the small farmer problem, but it was left to this Government to extend the Small Farmer Scheme in the right direction. The improvement in farm management which I have emphasised is vital to the future welfare of the small producer. And we are dealing with the small farmer, not in isolation, but as part of a comprehensive attack on the basic problems of the industry.
On agricultural credit, on agricultural co-operative marketing, on the development of the hill and upland areas, and above all on structure, it has been left to this Government to make a real start. That is why, as I mentioned in the Review White Paper, we intend that our animal health policy, which is important, should develop into preventive veterinary medicine. The previous Administration, who did nothing, must realise that we are seeking to press ahead with marketing. We are doing this, and this is why I am proud and privileged to initiate something useful for the development of orderly marketing in the meat industry.
All these longer-term developments will inevitably take some time to come to fruition. They imply, inevitably, close collaboration between the Government and the farming community, and in many cases—and hon. Members must remember this—no small expenditure of public money. In the long run, in a democratic society such as ours, it must be remembered that this expenditure of Exchequer money can continue only if the broad mass of public opinion recognises its value to the national economy. For that reason I utterly deplore all attempts to split town from country, and I was sorry to read of people sneering at those who live and work in towns and cities.
In my constituency I have areas of heavy industry and areas of farming. I have always followed the policy, both in my constituency and elsewhere, of trying to explain the feelings of the rural community to the town dwellers, and vice versa. I deplore any attempt to split this Island into town and country. For this reason, I have no time

for those who wish to destroy the system of agricultural support which stems from the 1947 Act passed by the Labour Government.
In a highly industrialised society such as ours that Act provided the framework within which agriculture could enjoy its proper place in the economy. It has enabled British people to enjoy better food at much lower prices than in any comparable industrialised country—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I must ask hon. Members on opposite sides of the House not to shout at each other from a sitting position.

Mr. Peart: Equally, however, it must be recognised that the system imposes a considerable charge on the taxpayer, which can be defended only if it is in the national interest. I have, therefore, equally no time at all for irresponsible elements of the farming community, encouraged, I regret to say, by intemperate remarks sometimes from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who talk about extremist action. I say to them, and they are a small minority of farmers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] Hon. Members know of the intemperate questions which were asked when I announced my Price Review. I say to this small minority of farmers, "Have done with talk of civil disobedience. That is not the way of the British farmer". To those fomenting such extreme attitudes, I say that by alienating the goodwill of the general public they are causing serious damage to the interests of agriculture. A curious fact is that when I ask those who attack the Price Review most vocally, they tell me that they have not read the White Paper, so I am heartened by the support of progressive farmers who have taken the trouble to study our long-term constructive proposals.
I advise hon. Gentlemen opposite to reconsider their emotional reactions, to stop playing at politics, and to consider calmly the facts of this Review, both in their immediate impact, and in their longer-term implications. When hon. Members study the facts calmly, they will see that we have laid the basis of a policy which will lead to a more stable, a more efficient, and a more prosperous agricultural industry.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I have been told that I am nearly the last maiden in the House. Accurate or not—and it is a little strange for a grandfather to be thus referred to—I am glad that I have lasted to this most important date in my constituency calendar, the debate on the Price Review and agricultural affairs. I admit that I was a little worried as to whether I would catch the eye of Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As an auctioneer, I am more used to having people trying to catch my eye.
Before mentioning the Price Review, which is perhaps a more controversial subject than is usual for a maiden speech, I hope that I may say something about my constituency. South-West Norfolk has been very fortunate since the war. We have had both Mr. Denys Bullard and the late Mr. Sydney Dye as our Members. Though very different personalities, they were outstanding countrymen, and I feel sure that the House missed them greatly. Many Members, not confined to this side of the House alone, I am sure, will hope that Mr. Bullard"s return will not be long delayed. My opponent, Mr. Hilton, was also a very good member.
Having been born and bred in Norfolk, as was my father before me, I am very proud to represent my home. I suppose it would be considered controversial if I were to say that we in South-West Norfolk feel that we are politically ahead of a lot of people. They say that how South-West Norfolk votes one year so the country will vote at the next election. But, leaving that aside, we can give a lead to the country, first, in productivity and, secondly, in labour relations.
South-West Norfolk is one of the finest farming constituencies in the country. The land varies from the productive fens near Downham Market, where I live, growing wheat and all the root crops—potatoes and sugar beet, chicory, celery and carrots—to the light Brecklands around Swaffham which were formerly sheep walks, but which now grow barley and sugar or are used for forestry, and so eastwards to the mixed farms round Dareham.
There are large farms—too large in some cases—but also a considerable number of smallholdings, the Norfolk County Council owning the largest smallholding estate in the country. I have been a member of the Smallholdings Committee of the Norfolk County Council since 1949, and in this connection I hope that the Minister will shortly receive the Wise Committee's Report and that it will look favourably on increasing the numbers and size of holdings on—and I emphasise this—suitable land.
It does not need any words of mine to say that labour relations in farming are an example to the rest of industry. If the increase in productivity had been attained in other industries, we should have no economic problems at all.
We are not, however, solely confined to farming. There are excellent modern industries, with first-class records of productivity and labour relations, including clock and furniture making, trailer works, fireworks—and here I add that I have none in my pocket—and light engineering. We are also very proud of the Service connection in South-West Norfolk. We have the R.A.F. stations at Marham Feltwell and Swanton Morley, and the Army training area at Mundford. They are not only outward signs of our defences but they provide very welcome civilian employment.
Since farming is the largest industry in South-West Norfolk, I wish to mention its contributions to the life of the nation and the problems which face it. I should like here to pay tribute to the former Minister of Agriculture, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames). He did a first-class job in this none too easy post and earned the sincere respect of all sections of the industry. He could be really tough with the farmers on occasions, but I think he fought well for them in the Cabinet. At the same time I would very much like to wish the present Minister all success in his job, despite his rather unhappy start. All the agricultural Ministers are very likeable personalities; unfortunately it appears that their colleagues do not believe in agriculture or understand the part it can play in the affairs of the nation.
The Price Review in total will hit agriculture hard. I wish only to mention two items which will greatly affect


Norfolk. The first is corn. The really savage cuts will hurt the smaller arable farmer more than the bigger farmer. I estimate that a 50-acre smallholder will have a cut in his income of 25s. a week. The beef increase of 4s. is, in my opinion, far too small; 10s. could easily have been given. I spent yesterday morning—perhaps hon. Members may say when I should have been here—selling fat cattle in King's Lynn Market. There the whole of the farming community were mentioning the shortage of stores, fatteners having to pay between £10 and £11 a cwt. for them and then selling them at about £9. I believe that we should give a bigger increase to fatteners.
The real grouse of agriculturists is just that incomes have been going down in relation to the cost of living while all around them others, including myself, have had increases. That is their real grouse and, whatever else is said today, that is how the farmers see the position. Rightly or wrongly, and I think rightly, there has been a real loss of confidence in this Government over the Price Review. Farmers and farm workers alike had been so buoyed up with promises of such great things to come from a Labour Government that they really began to believe them. This started with a speech by the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs which was made in my constituency and which has been referred to on many occasions. I think that Swaffham has become quite a notorious place as a result. It was later printed as the Labour Party's new policy on agriculture. As the Minister wrote in the Lynn Advertiser
The main objective of Labour"s new policy will be to ensure that the incomes of farmers and farm workers move rapidly towards their industrial equivalents.
Do hon. Members wonder that they feel badly let down now?
The industry has also begun to realise that the Labour Party, with honourable exceptions, has little interest in agriculture"s great value to the nation. Remarks made today by hon. Members opposite and remarks by at Question Time the other day by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) and the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) criticising even this paltry

award seemed to command a wide measure of respect from hon. Members opposite. I should like to mention some facts and some problems in the agricultural industry and, I hope, make a few constructive suggestions.
The facts which, unfortunately, are not understood by the public are these. In Great Britain we are producing a large proportion of the food consumed here, thus slashing the import bill. Nevertheless, last year British imports of temperate foodstuffs cost well over £1,000 million and were equal to at least three months of exports. Secondly, producers in Great Britain are highly efficient. Those people who say they are not are just talking nonsense and have not been on an East Anglian farm. Hon. Members need not take my word for this. Mr. Rees Mogg, the former editor of the Financial Times, writing in the Sunday Times, on 21st March, said:
International comparisons show British farming to be far ahead of British industry in its record of productivity. It takes twelve men to produce as much food in Britain as ten men can produce in America. But it takes twenty-five men to produce in Britain industrial goods that ten men can produce in America.
If British industry had kept up with farming, we should not have had a balance of payments problem since 1955. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that there is a very strong case for increasing home food production. I know that our farmers could do it and, with the world population explosion, surely we cannot and must not rely for ever on cheap food grown abroad.
Again—and this is a fact which does not seem to be appreciated by the British public—prices of the main British farm products are much lower than European prices. As everyone who has taken a holiday on the Continent knows, meat is far dearer there than it is here. The new guaranteed price for barley here is 5s. cwt. less than the French price and 12s. less than the German price. Of course, farming has its problems as well. Modern mass production methods and the formation of vast enterprises managed from afar create a real social and human problem, and this is something to which all Ministers must pay a great deal of attention in the future. The poultry industry is an example of this. There is no easy solution, but it would be a very bad thing


for this country if many of those who at present are farming their own land were to become the paid employees either of the State or of huge remote-controlled concerns.
The most urgent problem, however, is the relationship between the earnings of the farmers and skilled farm workers and the earnings of their opposite numbers in industry. In passing, may I emphasise the great skills of the farm worker. He is a skilled mechanic, able to drive, service and repair combines, tractors and the like. He can operate large grain storage plants and apply accurately sprays and manures.
Farm workers are really skilled men, and there is a shortage of younger skilled men on the land. This, in turn, will cut output; I have no doubt about that whatever. Yet the National Farmers" Union hardly ever manages to agree wages with the N.U.A.W. I think that a very bad thing. Their reason is fear of prejudicing their case at the Price Review. I should like to suggest that the Minister should state that an offer of increased wages sufficient to keep skilled younger workers on the land would not prejudice a claim for reimbursement. Secondly, that the T.U.C. should acknowledge—which it does not at the moment—that skilled workers in agriculture should not be kept on the bottom rung of the ladder. There would be considerable benefits from this. Sources of friction would be removed. Larger farmers would have a share of a skilled labour force without which increased production, particularly of livestock, cannot be undertaken. Working family farmers would have a better income, because a large part of what they are paid for their crops is represented by the labour element. Since they are working farmers, their income would be increased in this way.
I was glad to hear what the Minister said about my next point. I had written it down. Perhaps I may be forgiven for saying it over again, as he probably said it better than I shall. I hope that we shall never become two nations, either in any wider sense or in the narrower sense of town versus country. I was born and bred in the countryside, the grandson and great grandson of farmers. When I left school, my father said to me, as every father does, "Well, boy, what are you going to do?" I said that I should like to be a

farmer. When I said this, I was quickly told, "Boy, you have not enough brains and I have not enough money." So I became an auctioneer. That was in the 1930s, when one needed money to stick on a farm.
Since then, apart from my work on farms and in cattle markets, I have served in the Territorial Army with a company of Norfolk farm workers, who are the finest men one could serve with. I had five years as a prisoner of war, surrounded by the Highland Division. If that was not enough to make me tolerant of other people"s views—[Laughter.]—when one has heard chanters played for four or five hours at a time, one beomes a little intolerant—political life in South-West Norfolk should have made me so.
I say in all sincerity to those living in the towns, the vast majority of our countrymen, that British agriculture has a great deal to contribute to the wellbeing of the nation if it is given a chance. In particular, East Anglia, the food store of the nation, could enable imports to be cut drastically. The agricultural industry, however, must feel that it is wanted and farmer and farm worker alike be assured of fair pay for a fair day"s work.
I consider myself extremely fortunate to be a Member of the House. Now that I have completed this speech, which had a longer gestation period than usual, I hope that on future occasions I shall be able to contribute something of value to other debates.

5.42 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I am glad that it falls to me to congratulate the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) on an admirable maiden speech. I am sure that he will allow me, on behalf of the whole House, to congratulate him on his courage in intervening as an auctioneer in an agricultural debate. He spoke with ability and practical knowledge of his subject. I am sure that we shall look forward to contributions from him in our debates in the future. I would only add that if he had also had the privilege and opportunity of serving with the Welsh Division, he would have been even more tolerant than he was.
The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) spoke of the


difference between performance and promise. If he wants a very telling example of the difference between promise and performance, perhaps he would look at the pre-election and post-election Price Reviews of his own Government. He moved the Motion, which says that the Price Review has done severe damage to the confidence of the farming community. The confidence of the farming community was shaken a long time ago by a succession of erratic Price Reviews ranging from +£31 million in an election year to -£18 million. In those "minus years" there was no demand from hon. Gentlemen opposite for the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture. The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe, when Patronage Secretary, had many revolts of various kinds on his hands, but he never had a revolt in those years from hon. Members from agricultural constituencies sitting behind him.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Nonsense.

Mr. William Hamilton: They were muted.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: They were very muted. Nobody knew anything about them. But that was the time for hon. Gentlemen opposite to use their influence on the Government. That was the time for them to get their own Government to change their agricultural policies. At this late stage, it is no good right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite trying to wash their hands of the responsibility for those years. The farmers" leaders recognise the responsibility of hon. Gentlemen opposite for those years. In fact, the Vice-President of the National Farmers Union, who conducted the Price Review this year, said that the farmers" resentment is the "result of a build-up over the years"—not of this Review, but of a build-up over the years, years when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the greatest indictment of Tory agricultural policy has come from the leaders of the farming community. The advertisement which they put in the newspapers points to the fact that farmers" incomes have risen by less than 1 per

cent. over the last 12 years while the average incomes of the rest of the community have risen by 56 per cent. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture very generously pointed out, that was perhaps an overstatement, but it was not made by hon. Members on this side of the House; it was made by the farming community and their representatives. It is surely unjust that my right hon. Friend and the Government should have to "carry the can" for Tory agricultural policies. The blame should rest fairly and squarely where it belongs, and that is on the shoulders of the party opposite.
Hon. Members have concentrated their attack, to a large extent, on milk. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, with the exception of election year, a penny a gallon is the largest increase given to milk producers since the present system began. We have had —¼d., —½d. and even —1d. I will not say that this Review is one which many of us would have hoped for in different economic circumstances. It is acknowledged by leaders of the farming industry and by the Milk Marketing Board that the dairy industry costs, which were assessed at £11 million, have been met in full. This is not only a question of the amount of the award for milk or for any other commodity. I think that it is important for us to think of a Price Review not only in terms of the actual award, but of whether the farmer is getting a fair share of the award and of the subsidy.
This is a problem which is absolutely vital to the future prosperity of the agricultural industry, and it is a problem which the party opposite never attempted to tackle. It is important in meat and in milk. Large sums of public money have been voted for agriculture and to get the prices of food down, but they were not voted for the benefit of fertiliser firms nor for retailers who have often taken too large a share of the subsidies. We must look at this problem fairly, squarely and honestly, and ask ourselves whether the dairy farmer is now getting a fair share of the money. It is he who takes the risk and works the long hours, and he is entitled to an adequate reward. There is is a great deal of anxiety about the margin for milk. Out of the 4d. which the housewife pays, the farmer receives only ld. To many on this side of the


House, that does not seem to be an adequate share—

Mr. George Y. Mackie: Hear, hear.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I am glad to have the hon. Member"s support. He does not always support his brother, and I am glad that he has given me some support.
This disparity between what the farmer gets and what the housewife pays has continued for a very long time, and I am glad that for the first time my right hon. Friend has set up an inquiry into the distribution costs for milk. I am also glad that he says that we are to have the report in the summer.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does the hon. Lady accept that one reason that there is a grievance among farmers is that when the distributive trades changed to a five-day week, the cost was immediately passed on, whereas the farmer, who spends a seven-day week producing the milk, gets a very small return indeed?

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I agree with the hon. Member thus far: the fact that the dairy producer has to work a seven-day week should be given its due weight in the assignment of the award. No one would say that it is not right for the dairyman to have a five-day week, but the distribution as between the two sections should be fair and just.
There is a great disparity, too, between the farmer"s receipts and the amount which the housewife has to pay for other commodities. This is true to a serious extent about meat. The Verdon Smith Report pointed out the glaring disparity between the farmers" receipts and the retailers" profits. We on this side of the House pointed this out to right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in power, but in vain. Farmers have been very conscious of it and have wanted a meat producers" board—but no action was taken while the Conservative Party were in power. We were told that we must await the Verdon Smith Report. In the event, we found that the recommendations of that Report were not worth waiting for because they almost entrenched the system as it exists. The facts which the Committee produced were good and revealing, but their recommendations did not get us anywhere. I congratulate my right hon. Friend, after

years of shilly-shallying, that at last we are to have a meat and livestock board.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Lady has shown clearly that she believes that the Price Reviews under the previous Administration were bad. She gave no evidence in support of that, but that was the general impression which she gave. May we take it that in her view this Price Review in respect of milk and meat is unfair to farmers? If one interprets the evidence which she has given about meat and milk, it means that she says that the Price Review is unfair to the farmer in respect of milk and meat. Is that the clear message which she wants to give?

Lady Megan Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman has misrepresented me. I did not say that the Price Reviews of the previous Administration were uniformly bad. I quoted a "plus" Review before the election, and, in fact, there were three or four "plus" Reviews. If the hon. Member is trying to get me to say that I think that the milk award is satisfactory, I do not know what satisfactory is. I am simply saying that it compares very favourably with some of the milk awards which were made by the Conservative Government.
There are other important changes in the Review. Special consideration is being given in the granting of subsidies to those areas most in need. This has not yet been stressed. Special consideration is being given to small farmers particularly on marginal land. The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe did not devote much attention or much time to these benefits. He gabbled through them. But in Wales and other parts of the country these benefits are very valuable. In Wales the majority of farms are small and are on poor, marginal or upland land. The fate of these farms will determine the farming situation in Wales—and this also applies to Scotland, parts of the north of England and the West Country.
The extension of the small farmers" schemes will bring real assistance to these areas, 40,000 more small farmers will be brought into the schemes. Is that nothing? In Wales last year the schemes covered over 2,000 farmers. As a result of my right hon. Friend"s proposals, this


year the number of beneficiaries in Wales will be doubled, and their incomes will accordingly be increased.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Does not the hon. Lady believe that the schemes would be better if the limit went down as well as up? I am sure that in her division, as in mine, many small farmers will not qualify for the schemes.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I do not know whether the hon. Member means that the schemes should go below 20 acres. At a time when we are considering the importance and efficacy of having somewhat larger farm units, this is at any rate debatable. I will say no more than that.
The hill sheep farm subsidy over the last five years has been running at 9s. 6d. per ewe. It is to be increased to 18s.—almost double. There is also the increase in the hill cow subsidy. Instead of the farmer not knowing what he will get under these two provisions, and perhaps getting nothing at all, he will have some idea what he will get because of the more permanent character of these two awards.
Special new credit facilities are being granted which are important to small and medium farmers as well as to the larger farmers. There is also an indication in the White Paper that in the Review in future account is to be taken of geographical situation, soil, climate and market considerations. I welcome this very much. I hope this means that for the first time guarantees will be varied and directed to those areas most in need.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: Mr. Marcus Kimball (Gainsborough) rose—

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I have given way several times. It is slightly distracting, particularly when I am trying not to take too much time and to present a coherent argument to the House.
The question of the fair assessment of increased costs and the continuing gain in efficiency is of enormous importance and has not, I believe, been referred to in the debate. This is a vital matter in assessing the final reward in any Review. The figure was fixed at £25 million in 1960, which is five years ago, and now the Government have decided to review that figure. We welcome that decision.

However, I hope that when my right hon. Friend comes to review this figure he will consider whether £25 million is not a large sum to expect the industry to absorb, particularly when one takes into consideration the fact that the industry spends on capital improvements about £170 million. That sum must be found and the interest met. I realise that this is a time when the Government are asking all industries to absorb more of their costs. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider this figure relating to agriculture most carefully in coming to his conclusions.
We recognise the vital importance of this great industry in the economic life of the country. We recognise the unique contribution—and I emphasise "unique"—it has made and is making to our balance of payments. That is why we welcome the long-term proposals which my right hon. Friend has made, for it means that at long last we have a Government who are prepared to face some of the basic problems of the industry, and unless we are prepared to face up to these problems and tackle them there can be no real security for the farmers of this country, nor can there be any permanent prosperity for the industry.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I have always had a very high opinion of the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It was, therefore, a very great shock to me when he delivered his speech this afternoon, for it was in certain parts completely dishonest.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the speech of my right hon. Friend was completely dishonest. Is that in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it is in order to say that a speech was dishonest but not to say that a Minister is dishonest.

Mr. Turton: I will say why.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Turton: When dealing with the cereals side of the issue the Minister tried to make it appear that he was bound by


the international agreement to make a certain definite cut in the cereals payments, a cut amounting to about £2 an acre, whereas in fact he did not have the slightest justification for that cut. Certainly he had to make a cut, but not a definite one of £2 an acre and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to deny that.

Mr. Peart: I accept the challenge, and if the right hon. Gentleman will carefully read the White Paper he will see that I had to take that remedial action. To use extravagant language like "dishonest" in reference to my speech does not do the right hon. Gentleman justice. I have always thought of him as a reasonable man, but today he is merely being irrational.

Mr. Turton: I gather that the Minister agrees that there was no justification for a definite cut of a certain amount.
What we expected from the right hon. Gentleman was a coherent plan in the Price Review. I recall that when the right hon. Gentleman last year attacked the Price Review of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames) he quoted my criticism of the 1960 Price Review, when I said that there was no clear plan or reassurance for the future. I believe that that was true of the 1960 Review, but it was completely untrue of last year"s Review, because in that we had control of imports and a plan emerging for balanced production in agriculture.
Where this Price Reviews fails is in the fact that it does not give any confidence for the future to the man who is in livestock or dairying, the man who has a 50 to 150 acre farm. I recall the present Minister"s words of June, 1964, when, speaking at a luncheon in London, he said:
If I were Minister of Agriculture my first job would be to get the industry together and work out a five-year or more plan for British agriculture. Farmers just cannot go on living from one expedient to another, with all their prospects revolving around the February Price Review.
That is exactly the position in which we are now.
I entirely agree with the Minister that we must avoid exaggeration and that we must try to get to the real problem which is facing British agriculture today. As my hen. Friend the Member for Nor-

folk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) said in what I thought was a most able maiden speech, the real problem facing the man with a livestock or dairying farm of about 150 acres is that he is receiving in net income during the year an amount which is equivalent to about £15 a week. That sum must pay him back for interest on plant and capital and represents his remuneration, whereas the average earnings of a manual worker last year were £18 a week. This is the problem which the Minister has failed to attack in this Price Review.
Consider the position in regard to milk. Up till June, 1964, the number of dairy cows was lower than in any year since 1960. The number of heifers in calf was less than any year, except 1963, since 1960, and the number of milk producers had gone down from 150,000 to 125,000. I believe that the Minister has made a great mistake, although it may well be that it was a mistake which was imposed on him by the First Secretary. I refer, of course, to the issue of not giving the industry a 2d. rise for milk, which could have been given at very little cost to either the Exchequer or the consumer but which would have made a very great difference to the milk industry.
I cannot see how this 1·2d. per gallon will arrest the decline in the milk industry. After all, if the extra 1d. had been given it would have meant only £10 million on the Exchequer subsidy at a time when the subsidy on beef will be very much less this year than last. Or it could have meant, if it had been left to the consumer, a rise of about ½d. per pint for three additional months in the year. I believe that it would have resulted in keeping farmers in milk production without there being any great over-production of milk. It would have been well worth it.
The Minister makes it clear in paragraph 22 of the White Paper that the importance of this milk question does not only affect the milk side but also the beef market and, frankly, I am disturbed about the present position in relation to beef cattle. The figures for animals between 12 months and two years are lower than in any year since 1960. The number of cattle over two years old—which is natural, perhaps, in view of the way in which we are going in for


marketing lighter weights—has dropped by 50 per cent. in eight years and the number of heifers and calves has dropped by 9 per cent. in eight years.
Last year, our imports dropped by 400,000 cwt.—that is over 6 per cent.—but the actual cost to us in the trade returns went up by £15 million. I cannot see how we shall meet the consumers" demand for beef unless we give greater encouragement than the 4s. per cwt. on beef in the Price Review. We are very short of calves for the purpose.
A new development has occurred in the last few weeks. Irish stores, which are higher this year than last, are still well below the figure of four years ago. The Irish Government has now brought in a subsidy that will reduce the quantity of stores coming into this country, and I would ask whoever is to reply on behalf of the Government what their policy is for attracting farmers into rearing more livestock at the present time. The danger of this Review is that it is this sort of man who will go out of production.
I give the Minister full credit for having helped the hill farmer by increasing the hill sheep and hill cow subsidies, but this is accentuating the difference between the hill farmer and the man slightly lower down the hill, who is in milk production at the present time and who is the man on whom we rely to produce the calves and store cattle for the beef industry. That man is being driven down, especially in comparison with the hill farmers.
The hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) talked about production grants, but we have to realise that it is the lack of balance in the presentation that is doing the damage. It is serious when we consider that the farmer abroad is getting a much higher return for his cattle. Whilst the price of beef here is to be £8 14s. per cwt., the farmer in Italy will get £14 4s. per cwt. for his cattle; if he is in Holland he will get £12 per cwt., and if he is in Western Germany he will be getting £11. Therefore, unless the Minister can take fresh additional action in this respect, I foresee that we shall get a great deal of Continental buying of British beef, and a very great shortage of beef in our own shops.
I have tried to judge this Review by getting actual cases among my con-

stituents in the 150-acre margin, and seeing how they are affected. Some hon. Members seem to believe that there is a certain amount of exaggeration in Press reports of the farmers" reaction to the Price Review, but I have taken a sample of six farmers in my constituency with acreages of between 100 and 169. I can show the Minister the particulars if he wants to see them, but one would not, of course, want to identify sources in a speech.
These six farmers are all hit by the Review, to the following extent. In two cases, they have already had to dismiss workers. In two other cases they have decided to cut down their staff. In all six cases they are having to work out a policy for reducing production on their farms—in other words, lowering the standard of efficiency—in order to get by without having to go to the banks.
One man, who is farming 169 acres, has worked out exactly how the Price Review will affect him. He will get increases in the price of his products amounting to £134 a year, but he will suffer decreases in the same Review—by the cuts in the cereal payments—of £120. He is, therefore, up £14 in prices, but his wage costs, insurance charges, increased fertiliser costs and other increases come to over £250. Therefore, that man who is farming 169 acres, is about £230 out of pocket under this Review—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether that farmer pays rent and, if so, whether his rent has not gone up in recent times?

Mr. Turton: Certainly, one of the increases is an increase in rent. The increase in rent on that farm is £100. The increase altogether is about £250, of which £100 is increase in rent.
An example I have here shows that the position of the owner-occupier is exactly the same. The man in question is farming 100 acres. He expects an increase of roughly £100 and a decrease of £100—they balancė out. But his increased costs are in the region of £50. He does not pay rent, but his fertiliser costs, labour costs bring him out—

Mr. William Baxter: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what type of farmer this man is?


What is he producing? What is he rearing?

Mr. Turton: This man is producing milk. He has 16 milking cows, and he is fattening 12 bullocks. He has 51 acres of barley out of his 100 acres, and he is the sort of marginal man who is, in my view, being hit by this Review—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: One can gather that the inference of the questions my right hon. Friend has just been asked is anti-landlord, but would not the individual owner have an overdraft at the bank and have to pay increased charges as a consequence of the Labour Government"s Bank Rate increase?

Mr. Turton: That is a perfectly fair point. Maintenance charges have gone up just as others have, but in the instance I gave it is quite fair to say that £100 of the £250 was rent.
The Government have to think out again a policy to deal with this particular problem of the man farming about 150 acres. I have criticised the Price Review. It is only fair to say—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to get away with the point he made about my right hon. Friend making a dishonest speech. He made the point that my right hon. Friend did not need to make a full cut on cereals, but I have here a paper which I want to read to the House, and which makes it perfectly plain that my right hon. Friend was anything but dishonest. This is Cmnd. 2339, and it states:
The Government of the United Kingdom have decided that any necessary restraint of financial assistance should be applied through the effective reduction of guaranteed prices by means of the price mechanisms described in the United Kingdom White Paper on the Annual Review for 1964–65.
My right hon. Friend read out that part, but did not give the figures because he said that he did not want to bore the House.
The document goes on:
These mechanisms would in the case of wheat start to operate when production exceeded 3·2 million tons and would operate fully when production exceeded 3·3 million tons "—

Wheat production is now 3·9 million tons, so they have to operate fully:
and in the case of barley would start to operate when production exceeded 6·3 million tons and would operate fully when production exceeded 6·5 million tons".
Barley production is now 7·4 million tons. The right hon. Gentleman must agree that it is absolutely categorical that the full reduction of 4 per cent. had to be made, and I would ask him to withdraw what he said.

Mr. Turton: If I understand that correctly, there must be some reduction in price. There must not be the full reduction. I will certainly withdraw any imputation of intentional dishonesty on the part of the Minister. I never said that. I said that it was a dishonest approach because, in my view, it did not carry out the agreement. I will certainly take this opportunity of looking at it again.
I criticise the Review. What should have been done? I was saying what I believe that the Minister should have done. He should have increased the amount for milk by 2d. a gallon. I believe that the effect of that would have been to have stopped the drift away from milk. At the same time, it would have allowed the milk industry to produce the calves we require for beef. I believe he should have given an extra 10s. a cwt. on beef. What I believe he ought to have done—I recommend him to think again about this—was to have adopted a more adventurous policy in respect of the calf subsidy. Farmers who are living on what I call the; upland areas should be given a double calf subsidy to encourage them to produce the stores which are required for the beef industry. When the Irish stores fail—they will fail, and we shall be very short—it is vital to get the hill and upland areas producing the calves, I recommend this policy to the Minister.
I am glad to hear that the Minister is to reconsider the question of the £25 million for efficiency. The farmers have lost confidence in the present pattern of Price Reviews, because the more efficient they are the more they have to cut down their returns from their efficiency and the more they have in consequence to cut down the standard of their farming. It is regrettable that the industry has lost


confidence in the right hon. Gentleman so early in his career. I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will correct this.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has at any rate expressed a willingness to correct the impression he gave when he made his remark about the dishonesty of the approach of my right hon. Friend the Minister. If one thing stands out a mile with regard to the Minister, it is the honesty of his approach to these things. My right hon. Friend is not only being honest. He is being courageous, courteous, sympathetic and firm. It should go on record today how very much some of my hon. Friends and I admire the way my right hon. Friend has handled this whole business.
It should also be said how much many of us admired the performance displayed by the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman has been silent for far too long in this place. His speech this afternoon was magnificent as a histrionic performance. The right hon. Gentleman completely ignored the facts. He behaved as though, in sorrow far more than in anger, he was lecturing this side of the House for letting the farmers down.

Sir M. Redmayne: indicated assent.

Mr. Mallalieu: I see that I now have the right hon. Gentleman's approval. Nothing, is further from the truth. The right hon. Gentleman never so much as referred to the economic situation which the Conservative Party left us. The farming community as a whole is now £6 million better off as a result of the Review, in spite of the economic situation which everybody knows exists and which is denied only by hon. Members opposite. None of us likes talking about communities as a whole, because communities are made up of individuals who may be very differently affected from the way in which the average is affected. Farmers have had their extra expenses of £29 million. With the award of £10 million and the reasonable estimated increase in productivity, there is no doubt that they will get an extra £6 million.
This is not the sort of Review which most of us on this side would expect in normal times, but these are not normal times. In these circumstances it is an extraordinarily fair and generous Review. All the hysteria which has been generated by the Tory Party, encouraging this nonsense which is going on in the countryside and leading these poor boobs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as of course they are in politics, not in their proper affairs—up and down the streets and away from their proper affairs, encouraging them to behave as they have been doing, is not a good thing for the House and it is not a good thing for agriculture.

Mr. Michael Noble: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman does not know that long before the results of the Price Review were known in the House or outside the responsible leaders of the National Farmers' Union had rejected the review across the whole board. In the light of that, how can the hon. and learned Gentleman blame the Tories or anybody else for the anger of the farmers?

Mr. Mallalieu: I do not think it is necessary to blame only the Tories. I certainly do not. I think that the National Farmers' Union, for instance, has let the matter get out of hand. The union had a perfectly good case, one which I have argued myself many times, in the House and elsewhere, to the effect that the farming community should have a much greater slice of the national cake than it often does have and than it has at present. What the National Farmers' Union has not done is to show that the economic situation at any moment has a bearing on the situation. The fact that the National Farmers' Union had rejected these matters before the Price Review was made public and before right hon. and hon. Members opposite had had time to stir about in those troubled waters does not make the slightest difference. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are guilty for the way they have behaved since, just as the National Farmers' Union was guilty for the way it behaved before.

Sir John Maitland: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that some small part of the anger of the farmers is due to the promises that the


Labour Party made before the General Election?

Mr. Mallalieu: No, I do not nor does the Vice-Chairman of the National Farmers' Union, who has been quoted already this afternoon. He has made a very fair approach to these problems. He puts the blame fairly and squarely, not just upon what has happened this year, but upon what has happened for a good many years before.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Sir Harmar Nicholls rose—

Mr. Mallalieu: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman now. He has been interrupting frequently. He will agree that he has had his quota. Without a doubt, farming incomes have been rising. Farm incomes are not the only things that matter. Real income matters very much more than money income. Farm incomes rose by £31 million last year. Everyone would wish to see this go on. But if one accepts the principle, the mechanism of a farm Price Review, one surely has to accept also the possibility that there may be changes of emphasis within the total given to the agricultural industry.
The whole point of the Review is to try to introduce some stability and foreknowledge among the farming community of what they are to expect in the course of the next period. This undoubtedly has been the aim of Governments in the past, and it has been shown in difficult times that their aim still is an efficient, planned agriculture producing those things which in the interest of the country the farming community should produce.
I do not think that the farming community wants more, but the National Farmers' Union has to make noises in this direction, as anyone else has who is in a bargaining situation. If the farmers want more then they want to put agriculture on the dole. It is not on the dole at present, in my submission, though many people think that it is. In fact, the people on the dole are the ordinary consumers to a large extent and, if it is not they, it is the employers in industry and commerce who are able to pay less wages because their employees have to pay less for their food as a result of what is going on in the farming setup in this country.
I know that many farming leaders very often exclaim that we must have an expanding agriculture. They base their claim largely on the fact that the agricultural production which we have had over the last few years has been to a large extent of great benefit to our balance-of-payments position. Nobody disputes that, but surely it is not wise to say that we must have unlimited production in agriculture. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who has?"] I submit that very often the remarks and attitudes of hon. Members opposite give some colour to the belief of people who do not study these things as much as we study them in the House that they are arguing that there should be unlimited expansion.
Everybody who produces a commodity says, of course, that the production of that commodity should be expanded. There is a great deal to be done by way of expansion, as my right hon. Friend has said, and I have no doubt that due to the increased food market in this country the agricultural community can look forward to great increases in production. But it all depends where and in what set-up. I should have thought that wheat was certainly not one of the products, nor cereals either. We are probably at present self-sufficient in barley.
I wonder whether the larger farmers of East Anglia really imagined that this pay-day, as I would call it, was everlasting for them. If they did they are much bigger fools than I had taken them to be. I believe that the tendencies shown in this Review are such as to cause the agricultural community to be extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for many years to come.
There has, of course, been a shift away in this Review from those who are most prosperous in the industry, but many of them know jolly well that they will still be prosperous in spite of the shift away from them in the direction of their poorer brethren on the hills and those who, for one reason or another, describe themselves as marginal whether because they have too small an acreage or because they have not enough capital or because they are too high in the hills. These people will have a definite advantage given to them. This is a great constructive effort on the part of my


right hon. Friend. It does not stop there—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Before the hon. and learned Member leaves the point about East Anglian farmers, I am sure that he would not want it to be put about that he imagines that they get a large return on their investment. I agree that there are many prosperous men among them, but if one includes investment in land, buildings and stock, their return is a great deal lower than it is in a wide field of manufacturing industry.

Mr. Mallalieu: I accept that comment to a large extent and it would apply equally to biggish farmers in Lincolnshire. All the same, I would describe them as fairly well-to-do, and that being so, I do not think that they have much to complain about. There may be certain aspects in which they are not quite as well off as other people, nevertheless they are not doing too badly.
The measures now being taken to assist their smaller brethren who are in more difficult circumstances are extremely good. The help given in the matter of holdings is unspectacular and will gain no electoral support but it is very important to the efficiency of these holdings. We have had the promise also of serious consideration being given to the question of amalgamation. This does not only mean putting together holdings which are too small to be economically viable by themselves. It means that there is a great human question here to be decided.
I look forward to the time when we shall hear the results of my right hon. Friend's studies in these matters and of his consideration of the experience of many continental countries, whether it be concentration, or the retraining of the human elements which will be affected by the tendency which has been going on for some time toward bigger and bigger holdings. I look forward greatly to hearing about that, because I believe that the Labour Government have shown that they mean business in the matter of agriculture, setting it on a sound foundation, as they did in the years before, and also applying themselves to the human side of things. The Government will attend to that so that in the areas mostly affected by amalgamations there will be left a happy and contented population.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: I ought to declare an interest, or disinterest, in the Price Review. I am a big farmer. This is often brought against me, and perhaps one could notice in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) that he thought that farmers should not be prosperous or prosperous-looking. But I have a good, big farm. It is of course superbly managed, and I have a good banker. [An HON. MEMBER: "And good workers."] Yes, excellent. Therefore, I do not think that in any circumstances that the Government could apply, however, bad a Review or anything else, I would fail to make a living on this land, with the good men and with the good training I have had. But this does not apply all over the country.
I should like to take up with the Minister and the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne), who respectively opened the debate from each side of the House, their complete agreement on certain points. They are absolutely agreed that we must not produce too much so that it will cost the taxpayer a great deal of money. I always thought that the whole object of deficiency payments was that people should have cheap food and that we were willing to pay from the Exchequer so that cheaper food could flow to them. The price of the people's food has gone up in the shops by 30 per cent. since 1953 and the whole system has broken down. The agreement between the two Front Benches is highly unhealthy. They need to work out a system whereby we can produce in this country the maximum amount of food, with not too much of one thing and too little of another, at an effective and efficient price.
I should like to discuss this matter of the efficiency of British farming for a moment or two. It is often said from both sides of the House that large doles are poured out to the farming community. In its report on the growth of the economy last year, the N.E.D.C. showed that agriculture was in the top seven industries in this country in improving its production per man by over 5 per cent. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) spoke about the British farm worker's productivity. Ten people in America produce as much as


12 people do here on the land, and this in spite of the immense natural advantages and opportunities for mechanisation which large sections of American agriculture enjoy. One can quote other figures. We produce five times as much per man as is produced in the Soviet Union.
Prices in this country are not high. There have been references to food prices in Europe, but it is not generally known in this country that the price paid for wheat in America is higher than it is in this country, again in spite of America's great natural advantages. The people of Britain are getting reasonably cheap food, particularly compared with other countries in Europe, where, for instance, the price of wheat has just been fixed at £38 a ton, the price of barley at £33 and the price of beef at the figure already quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).
With this set-up, and the obvious efficiency of production in this country, a simple system leading to the production of all the food we need is, surely, the aim to go for. Mr. Paul Chambers, the Chairman of I.C.I., who is regarded as reasonably competent, put a figure on this at the Oxford farming conference. He pointed out that about £700 million worth of the food we imported came from temperate zones—that is, food which we could grow in this country. He suggested that we could grow about £250 million worth. This would make an immense contribution to our balance of payments. If we could increase production by £50 million a year, the saving would be far greater than any contribution which the Germans could make towards the cost of our Armed Forces or anything else. To those who are worried about exports and who will buy from us abroad, I reply that the British farmer is as good a consumer as he is a producer.
The world population is increasing enormously. We are still buying nearly half our food from abroad, and we must have an expansion of production. I am quite certain, in spite of the protestations from the benches opposite, that this Review has grievously disappointed the British farmer. We are not all farming barons in East Anglia or in Strathmore. A very large part of our production, much

more than the 25 per cent. referred to on the Front Bench, comes from the farmer in the inner range who is not particularly prosperous. It would not have cost much, if anything at all, to help him. Out of a rise of 4d. on milk at the ultimate retail end, 3d., apparently, is going to the distributors and only 1d. is to go to the farmer. It may work out slightly differently, but that is how it appears to go.
The Minister of Agriculture says that we cannot have a cost-plus economy, but this is precisely what happens in the distributive trade. I am glad to hear that the milk distributors' agreement is now to be readjusted so that some efficiency creeps in. Distributors have been making a great deal of money. Costs have risen, and awards to them have risen because the system is based on a broad sample of distributors. What is not taken into account is that, as soon as one goes beyond a round of 6,000 gallons, enormous economies of distribution can be made and, of course, one can make a large amount of money. I am glad to know that this is to be looked into and that the Minister will not put up with a cost-plus economy any more.
I have one or two points to raise with particular reference to marginal and hill land. In Scotland the removal of the quality premium will do a good deal of harm. I agree that beef could easily have gone up. We shall need more and more beef in this country, and we are not likely to be able to get it from our traditional sources, not even from New Zealand. If the Japanese can "pinch" tanker orders from us, they can do enough to buy beef from New Zealand to feed their people. Plainly, there is a world shortage of beef. We see the evidence everywhere. People are, quite rightly, eating more beef. Even the Argentinians are eating more of their own beef. No increase in production which we can have will make up for the increased consumption in various parts of the world, particularly those parts where there is now a much higher production of industrial goods.
Milk and beef are interrelated. The Minister has not explained exactly what he intends to do about the small farmer who is going out of milk. There is no question but that small farmers will go out of milk. Even had the price gone


up another 1d., a lot of them would have gone out. This is why there should have been much more encouragement to go in for beef. I welcome the schemes for reorganisation, the improvement in the advisory service and so on. These things are all first class, but there is no real substitute for an attractive price at the end of the line, so that the feeder can pay more for stores.
Sheep farming will suffer badly. I do not see why sheep farmers should not have had a little encouragement. We could build up a big export trade in sheep, and the agreement with New Zealand should allow for an expansion of production because, of course, mutton is an alternative to beef.
The increase in the potato guarantee is, perhaps, unimportant. I would much rather pin my faith on the discussions which I understand are going on about the quicker implementation of a buying programme when the Board thinks that there is trouble ahead. I should very much like to see this done on a regional basis because we suffer continually in Scotland—the same is true in other remote areas or places where transport costs between producer and consumer are high—

Sir Herbert Butcher: Will the hon. Gentleman carry his advocacy so far as to suggest variations between early and main crop potatoes?

Mr. Mackie: Earlies present a much more difficult problem, as the hon. Gentleman knows, because they must be got off the ground in a certain time. If we had the main crop secure, I should regard the present arrangements for earlier as reasonable satisfactory. I may be saying this simply because I am not an early potato grower, but it is the main crop about which we are principally concerned.
In many parts of the North, farmers and crofters are very worried about the disparity between the Crofters Commission grants and the winter keep grants. In some cases, figures can be produced showing that there is a higher return from the winter keep grants than there is from the Crofters Commission grants. They should be lined up one with the other.
It is disappointing that we have had no incentive to improve hill land. Hill land is one of our last reservoirs of new land. It is vital to have proper incentives for the reclamation of land. I do not mean simply ploughing up old grassland. I am thinking of the proper way to tackle reclamation, drainage and the rest. These incentives should be given and a definite programme set going. This is something which we expected, but we did not get it.
Many of these criticisms are factual and apply to particular districts, but I must say that the Minister of Agriculture has missed a great chance in this Review to make people expansion-minded. He said that this was his own doing, and he rejected any idea that he was being influenced by the Treasury. I hope and trust that he took the Secretary of State for Scotland into his confidence, but he said that it was indeed his own Review. We appreciate that this is being very British, with the C.O. taking all the blame, but I think that the Minister made an immense mistake and that the Government as a whole have made a mistake.
Here we have an industry which can expand. Indeed, we have evidence that it can expand at a reasonable price level. Instead of that, we shall save a very little money temporarily. It is much more important to set going the long-term expansion which ought to take place, and must take place, if we are to obtain a decent balance of payments position. The Government appear to have lost the chance to do this by sticking too closely to Tory policy. If they had, instead, done what they said they would do when they were in Opposition, and introduced a new system of support and bought far more of our cereals and meat through a commission and released it on the market at a guaranteed price, we should have an entirely different set-up. If the price of food went up marginally, many economies could be made in the distribution system. It is said that for every £1 the consumer pays in the shop, the farmer gets 6s. Between those two figures there is immense room for improvement.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Has the hon. Member ever distributed?

Mr. Mackie: Yes, indeed. I should like to see the Government distribute a little more as well in order to increase


production and get a proper return from the farming industry. All over the country there are efficient farmers. I am glad that the Minister is producing schemes for amalgamation and for improving the structure of farming, but the first essential is to gain the confidence of the farmer, and I should like another Review before it is too late.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: Like the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie), I must declare my interest in the subject. As a farmer, I am disappointed with every Price Review. I think that the Price Review is becoming absolutely unreal. It is based on foundations which seem to me to be almost fictional. When we get the result year after year and examine the White Paper, it makes one wonder just how the Price Review is fixed.
The Price Review gives factors of agricultural values which, when they are considered over all the 450,000 farmers in the country, are completely unassessable. Agriculture is not like industries which have branches in different parts of the country. In the agricultural industry we have 450,000 holdings which are very diverse in structure, development, stocking and production. Yet the whole lot are measured with one measuring rule.
Right at the beginning we had incorporated in the Price Review the efficiency element and the increased production element. On the assessment of the increased production element farmers are praised for increased production, but on the assessment of the efficiency element they are punished for it because a price is fixed which they themselves have to absorb. Out of the £29 million we have to absorb £18½ million spread over 450,000 farmers.
Paragraph 6 of the Price Review says:
Most of the output of the industry is produced by about a quarter of our 450,000 agricultural holdings.
So most of the production comes from one-quarter; that is where we get the increased efficiency. That section can absorb the £18½ million in its proportion, but the £18½ million is spread over all the 450,000. What does the White Paper say about this? It goes on:

On the other hand half of our holdings produce only a very small part of the industry's output.
It also says:
The remaining quarter…consist mostly of small and medium-sized farm businesses.
They are ones which just provide a small living for the occupier.
If there were one level right throughout the industry, it would be fair for the industry to absorb the £18½ million. But three-quarters of the industry has to absorb its proportion of the figure year after year. This can be done only by taking it out of the farmer's livelihood. The industry cannot absorb it out of increased production. There is no scope in the farms to absorb this increased production, and so that figure has been taken year after year out of the farmer's livelihood. Today, this has reached a point where the farmer cannot carry it any further. That is why the farmers are going out of business. In all the Price Reviews we are dealing with unrealities and not with the actual position of the farmers. It comes to absolute absurdity when weather conditions are assessed financially. The N.F.U. statement which all hon. Members have had states on page 4:
Between the end of the war and the early I950s, real income increased by about 20 per cent. on the basis of actual yields and 14 per cent. when adjusted to normal weather conditions.
In other words, these things are assessed according to the weather. If we go much further we shall be assessing a shower of rain in pounds, shillings and pence.The statement goes on to say,
On the basis of actual weather conditions, the net income is only slightly above the 1952–53 level; on a normal weather basis, the net income is still 1½ per cent. below that level.
It becomes quite ridiculous when normal and actual weather conditions are used in assessment of agricultural production and values. We are dealing in unrealities in these terms.
My right hon. Friend said that 25 per cent. of these farms produce 70 per cent. of our agricultural output while the other 75 per cent. of holdings produce the remaining 30 per cent. of output. Let us consider milk production in relation to these figures. There is undoubtedly great disappointment in the agricultural community about the milk


price of 1d. per gallon. Why is this? It is because, over the years, these farmers have absorbed the costs. Last year they were granted 2½d. per gallon, but that did not cover what they had absorbed in the Previous ten years—nothing like it. They were still out of pocket.
Speaking on 25th January, the President of the N.F.U. said:
From 1955 to 1964 the costs increased to the farm by £218 million. The guaranteed price increased to him by £76 million, leaving him to absorb £142 million.
The small farmer cannot, out of increased production, absorb these costs. He has done so out of his livelihood all the way through and he cannot do it any longer. I say quite frankly that the small milk farms often just cannot expand. They require more buildings, but first of all they require more land. The need is for amalgamation of small farms into economic units so that they can become good family farms. I have hammered this point year in and year out in this House. I first raised it 20 years ago, and I have done so in every agricultural debate that I have spoken in since.
It is pathetic to see small farmers struggling to get a living and, in order to meet the Price Review charges put upon them time and again, reducing the standard of living of their families. There are 33,557 farms with nine cows or less. That figure includes some farmers who keep a cow for domestic use. A living cannot be made out of nine cows or less. There are 34,803 farms with from 10 to 19 cows. They can do a little better but cannot make a good living out of 19 cows. There are 22,680 farms with between 20 and 29 cows. Thus, there are 91,000 farms where, in absorbing all these costs placed upon them year by year, living standards have to be reduced. That is why the milk farmer is disappointed. He is disappointed because he cannot carry on, because he just cannot absorb these costs and will have to get out.
When he is taking these costs out of his living, where can he find the capital to buy more cows, to get more land so as to increase his holding and to put up new buildings? New buildings are needed in almost every type of farm. The amalgamation of farms is an absolute necessity, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend

is introducing it in this Price Review. I hope that he gets along with it quickly. In amalgamating farms, I am certain that he will put thousands of farmers on a better financial basis and a higher standard of living than they have ever experienced.
Now I shall tread on someone's corns. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite had better wait to cheer until they hear who it is. One thing that the Labour Party has always been afraid of is an increase in the cost of food. In the 1945 to 1951 Parliaments we refused to deration towards the end, not just because there were shortages, but because we were afraid that the price of food would increase. When the Conservatives came in they removed rationing after about three years. We realised then that the housewife, if she could go into a shop and make the purchases she wanted, would pay for them—and she did. Prices went up and the housewives paid them because they had free choice.
Milk is worth more than the housewife is paying today. When I consider the price of beer and see it going down people's necks and then consider the price we are giving for milk—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What about whisky?

Mr. Kenyon: My hon. Friend knows more about whisky than I do.

Mr. Hughes: Price.

Mr. Kenyon: I do not know what the price of a pint of beer is. How much is it?

Mr. John Brewis: Would the hon. Gentleman like to know that the price of lemonade has gone up from 3d. pre-war to 11d., with ½d on the bottle pre-war and now 3d.?

Mr. Kenyon: Will somebody tell me the price of beer.

Hon. Members: 1s. 6d.

Mr. Kenyon: I am told that the price of a pint of beer is 1s. 6d. The price of a pint of milk is 9d. and there is no comparison between their respective food values.

An Hon. Member: We cannot get drunk on milk.

Mr. Kenyon: No, but the price paid for beer includes paying for 97 per cent. water. If the people of this country can pay for beer to that extent, they can pay a little more for milk.
The assessment of values by the housewife is most interesting. A potato merchant told me only yesterday that he was selling home-grown potatoes at five lbs. for 1s. 3d. and imported new potatoes—I do not know whether they came from the Canary Islands, the South of France, or Spain—at 1s. a lb. He can sell more new potatioes at 1s. a lb. than he can sell home-grown potatoes at five lbs. for 1s. 3d.
These are the values which the housewife herself places on foodstuffs. I say to my right hon. Friends that we need not be afraid of getting better value for farming commodities, because if the food value is there and the quality is good, the housewife will pay the price. My right hon. Friends should keep that in mind.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman consider some of the prices which have risen? For instance, the price of bread has gone up by 57 per cent., but the housewife pays it quite happily.

Mr. Kenyon: The prices of many things have risen. Housewives have to pay some of them, but they do not have to pay more than 9d. a pint for milk at the moment
I have been critical of the small farmers' scheme for a long time. I have seen it working on many farms. It works all right when priming the pump in the three years when the small farmer is given fertilisers, or bought cattle, or machinery and so on. But what happens when that period ends and the small farmer is thrown back on his own resources? In 50 per cent. of the cases he goes back to his former position. He cannot keep up the capital requirements of his farm.
Because of this the Ministry ought to be very careful about where it makes these small farmer grants. It ought to examine the whole situation and realise that unless the small farmer has resources which will enable him to keep going and

to improve and increase after receiving the grants. giving the grants is a waste of money.
Finally, I come back to the hills. The potential production from the hills is tremendous. The hills can provide the sheep which we need to meet our meat requirement. They can provide stores for both meat and dairy. They can provide poultry. If only we can put the hill farmers in a proper working position, the whole of farming will benefit.
But this is a tremendous task and we have not yet realised what it means. These are the farms of little production and somehow there is no urge among the hill farmers to increase production. They are happy to carry on as they are. The capital requirements for changing these farms are colossal. First there is the need for new buildings and new buildings cost a great deal of money today.
However, if we are to improve and increase the production of these farms, they must have proper buildings, because on the hills more than on the lowlands proper buildings are required. On the hills we have to take our stock indoors six weeks before it is done in the Midlands and the South and the North, and in the spring we have to hold it back six weeks because the grass has not grown.
We need these buildings for wintering the cattle. What is not realised is that in summertime we can carry three times the amount of stock which we can carry in the winter. The grass grows in spring and summer, but then we do not have the stock to put on the land because we have not been able to carry it through the winter. The second thing the hill farmer needs, therefore, is more meadowland. He has to make more meadowland out of the upland slopes so that he can gather sufficient fodder to carry his summer stock through the winter.
That is what is needed and that is the greatest difficulty of all. If they could buy or grow sufficient hay and other fodder to carry the summer stock through the winter, hill farms could double their output in very little time. But the buildings are required and the meadowland is required. If we can do that, we shall make a contribution to the agriculture of this country second to none.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Kenyon: This is not the first time that I have been preaching a sermon when the congregation has thought that I have finished and I have not.
The picture is changing with the advent of electricity on many hill farms. We have been defeated in times past by the weather in gathering hay. Hay has been ruined year after year. But today we have the opportunity of putting in barn hay driers. Barn-dried hay is the finest fodder that we can get. I know that many farmers go on to silage, but silage stinks and it is mucky. It is all right for the farmer who can turn the working of silage over to his labourers, but he would not have it if he had to do it himself. The farmer can overcome this difficulty by having barn hay dryers.
I am confident that if the farmers can get the capital—this is where the Minister comes in—not the sort of capital to which reference was made on a television programme on Sunday afternoon on which farmers have to pay 8½ per cent. interest, but cheaper capital so that they can improve their land and develop meadow land, feed cattle through the winter, erect new buildings and put in barn hay driers, the work done on the hills will equal anything done in either Norfolk or Lincolnshire.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Peter Kirk: I realise that an absence of a little over five months from the House does not entitle me even to the dubious advantages of semi-virginity, if I may so put it. Nevertheless, it is with some trepidation that I intervene to make what is in effect a maiden speech in an agricultural debate. I do so not only because I now represent a very agricultural constituency, but because, as the Minister will I think know, apart from a little local difficulty at Stansted Airport, the Price Review is probably the thing which interests the people of Saffron Walden most.
I am sorry that the Minister is not in his place—I quite understand that he is very much preoccupied—because I wanted to express to him in the House my personal regret for the reception which he had in Saffron Walden Town Hall. I would hasten to say that this had nothing whatsoever to do with my party or myself. Indeed, it did not

have very much to do with the farmers of Saffron Walden. The reception was organised by people who came from a long way away. Many farmers in my area had great difficulty in getting in the town hall I wish that he had had a quiet reception because then the farmers of the area would have had the opportunity to put to him the penetrating questions which I know they were anxious to ask him and which in the general uproar were not answered.
This Review has, I think, caused general disappointment, and, moreover, a general feeling of deception, among the farmers of this country, and certainly among the farmers of East Anglia, of which Saffron Walden is part. There is a slight tendency among hon. Members opposite to brush aside the East Anglian farmer as if he is making far too much money and that it will not do him any harm to have a knock. The hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) gave the impression that the East Anglian farmer had had seven fat years and that it was about time that he had seven lean ones to teach him where he got off.
It is true that in East Anglia farmers probably farm on a greater scale than almost anywhere else in this country. This is not a bad thing. I should have thought that the introduction of economy of scale was one of the things which led to the great advance in agriculture over recent years. As I understand the White Paper, this is one of the things which the Minister is hoping to do through a process of amalgamation, and this makes a great deal of sense. The fact that the East Anglian farmer works on a bigger economic unit enables him to make a bigger return and therefore a bigger contribution, but it also creates its own problems.
Nor is it wholly true to say that everybody who farms in East Anglia is a "barley baron" driving his two "Jags" and his "Merc" whenever he goes on a protest march. There are many small farmers in the area, certainly in my constituency, particularly pig producers. We have a large number of poultry farmers for whom this Review has done very little except give them another knock on the head as they are going down. It is wrong to get the impression


that, because East Anglia is a prosperous farming area, it does not matter very much if farmers there suffer as a result of this Price Review.
Perhaps I can give the House some examples of what effect the Review will have purely on cereal farmers, who are the ones with whom we are most concerned. I take two examples in my constituency. One man farms 450 acres—a big farm, but not the biggest by any means in East Anglia or in my constituency. He calculates that he will receive as a result of the Review £195 less on 90 acres of wheat and £768 less on 320 acres of barley. Also, his rent is up by £340, his wages and insurance by £304, his bill for repairs, fertilisers and fuel by £315 and machinery replacements by £195. Therefore, his total income is reduced by £2,117. The only thing which he can set against this is the increase in value of £84 on 56 acres of sugar beet. He is, therefore, just over £2,000 down on a 450 acre farm.
The hon. and learned Member for Brigg may be right. It may be that the farmer has been doing too well in the past, but that is quite a knock for anybody to take, however well he has been doing.

Mr. W. Baxter: What was his net profit on the previous year?

Mr. Kirk: I do not know. That is not the point I am making. My point is that anybody, whatever his profit, who has to take a loss of that size suffers. On 450 acres this man's net profit cannot be so big. He cannot be a multimillionaire on 450 acres of barley.
Let me deal with a small farmer farming 104 acres. He reckons that the reduction of his annual income will be only £100, but the small increase in the price of potatoes and sugar beet will not reimburse him for the last wage increase and the tractor fuel and petrol increase. This is something for which the Government have responsibility. They generated quite a lot of the £29 million increase in costs by increasing the petrol tax, by increasing the insurance stamp and by making an increase in Income Tax, which is due to take effect after the next Budget, and by imposing the 15 per cent. surcharge. I therefore think it understandable, to put it no higher, why there is a very con-
Siderable feeling of resentment even among these mythically very prosperous farmers in East Anglia.
Their feeling resentment turns also on the fact that this is what one might call an incoherent review. It is not plain to the farmers what they are supposed to do. It is plain what they are not supposed to do—grow barley and wheat. What are they supposed to grow instead? Suppose that they switch to sugar beet. They are then up against the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and the fact that refining capacity in this country cannot cope. It is not at all clear to the farmers where they fit into the Government's plans or what is expected of them. Surely this could be made plain.
We tend to think too much of the farmer alone and too little of the whole farming population, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) said in his maiden speech. Obviously one of the main costs is wages. I am sure that we all agree that farm wages are too low. We have to attract highly specialised and highly trained men into farming and we are not getting them. What is much more serious is the fact that we are not getting young people into farming. We are running into a situation when even the big farmers, those whose total staff has come down by half during the last 10 or 15 years, as is quite common in my part of the world, in north-west Essex and East Anglia, are now approaching the minimum of their scale of employees. They cannot do with fewer men and they cannot get the men. If to get the men the wage rate has to rise again, as, perhaps, it should, this is an additional element of cost which, against, the farmer is expected to absorb.
I know it is said that in the present economic situation everybody must absorb costs. When the Secretary of State for Scotland winds up the debate, however, I should like to know from him whether, in the present economic situation, any other industry is being asked to absorb two-thirds of its costs. I do not believe that there is one such industry in which this is happening. That is another reason why the farmers feel that they are being unfairly picked upon. It may be that their reaction is too extravagant and it may be that they have not


been particularly clever politically in putting their case. The Government must not, however, be misled into thinking that their reaction is not genuine, because it is extremely strongly felt, especially because they hoped for some performance from right hon. and hon. Members opposite after the promises which they have been making for so long.
I agree with a lot of what the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) said about Price Reviews generally. In effect, we are tending to make too much a god of the Price Review. It might be a good idea if we could use this experience for examining whether the Annual Price Review is still the best way of coping with the farming problem.
We all accept the advance that the 1947 and 1957 Acts brought to us, but 1947 was 18 years ago and it does not necessarily follow that what was right in detail then is still right in detail today. There are two things which are wrong with that Act. The first is that it does not provide nearly enough flexibility. Once a year, there is this great confrontation between the two sides between the Government and the farmers, and that is really the limit. One saw this with potatoes only the other day. It was impossible to bring in support buying quickly enough to have an effect upon the market. It might have been possible had the Minister not refused to do it the first time he was asked. All the same, even if it had been done when he was first asked, probably by the time that the machinery got going it would have been to a large extent too late.
I am fairly certain that we shall see a similar situation with eggs before the year is out. I know to my cost, because I produce some, that we have an egg glut, but I am fairly certain that there will be a shortage towards the end of the year. Judging from the chick position, there will be a shortage of birds coming along. Obviously, the Government cannot be expected to increase the egg price, although they might have left it alone at this moment; but there may well come a time a few months hence when they want to do so. If that happens, they will be in grave difficulty because the machinery simply does not exist. Therefore,

a greater degree of flexibility is needed, and it is certainly needed generally in horticultural matters.
The second thing to be considered is whether a one-year Price Review is right or whether, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) suggested, the period should be two or three years. I go even further. I think that a period of five years is needed to get any kind of planning into agriculture. We want a quinquennial Price Review, with an interim Review, say, every 18 months or so to make the necessary adjustments because of the cost of living, the economic situation or whatever it may be.
I do not believe that we can get by nowadays on one-year planning only. The situation has advanced beyond that stage. In 1947, we were trying to build up production from a low level to ensure that we grew at least half the food in this country for ourselves. We are now doing that and we want long-term planning to prevent the situation which now prevails in East Anglia that everybody has produced cereals because he was asked to do so but now finds that he is producing too much. This difficulty must be circumvented. I am not making any particular political point. It is as much our fault on this side as it is of the party now in Government that this situation has arisen. It is, however, essential that a way must be found of long-term planning to ensure that as far as possible the situation rolls in the proper way.
There are one or two small points which I should like to make to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I wonder whether, when he replies, it would be possible for him to expand a little more on paragraph 51 of the White Paper concerning agricultural credit. I welcome, as, I am sure, all hon. Members do, the fact that, as the White Paper states:
Certain financial institutions will be offered financial backing so that they may more readily give guarantees to the banks for the repayment in due course of short and medium-term bank loans made to farmers and also to farmers' co-operatives and groups to the extent that they are marketing primary farm produce.
Will that apply to people who are not marketing primary farm produce but who have too little of what one might


call landlord capital and too much tenant capital? I hope that the Secretary of State understands my meaning. The existing trouble with credit is that if it is based upon total capital, which is how the banks tend to do it, this shuts out the tenant farmer to a considerable extent and makes it extremely difficult for him to get any capital. I hope that this sort of scheme of Government backing for financial institutions can be used to give credit to tenant farmers in particular who can lodge as collateral their own proven efficiency as well as the stock which they may have. If we could achieve something on these lines, we will he doing a great deal for the tenant farmer.
The situation prevailing in distribution and marketing—not simply in milk, although, obviously, it is worse in the case of milk than in any other direction—is now reaching serious proportions. I am glad that the Government are to examine the distribution of milk. I am as puzzled as everybody about where the extra 3d. is going. I should very much like to know and I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to tell us.
There is need to have a general review of the marketing situation of all agricultural products and of horticultural products in particular. We have not really recovered from the failure of the old horticultural marketing scheme. It would be a good thing if we could revise our whole approach to horticultural marketing and see whether we can get it much closer to the primary producer. If we can do this, it will be of great benefit to agriculture generally.
As I said at the beginning, this is in a sense a maiden speech. I hope, however, that the shock which the Price Review has undoubtedly administered to the farming community—and, I hope, to the Government as well—will lead people to examine once again whether this way of regulating farm income is still the right one or whether some other form of longer-term planning would not be better.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) tells us that he has been here before. Although we wish that the result at Saffron Walden had been slightly different, now that he is here we

are glad to hear him making his second maiden speech. Certainly, when the hon. Member talked about the need for a long-term farm policy which would raise the standard of life of the farming community and give a food supply to the people he was re-echoing the views of those of us who try to think of agriculture in constructive terms.
I represent a considerable number of farmers and milk producers. It is useless to pretend that there has not been a great upsurge of feeling as a result of the Price Review. Farmers are definitely disappointed, and I should be unfair to my constituents if I tried to hide that in any way. If, however, hon. Members want to see the real emotional reaction to the Price Review among milk producers, they should turn to last week's edition of what, I think, is the best agricultural journal, the Scottish Farmer.
There we have many different but nevertheless indignant expressions of opinion.
What I think was the most extreme did not come from my constituency but from the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I read here a speech of a farmer called Mr. Loudoun of Moscow. If hon. Members are wondering what Moscow has to do with this Price Review, I should explain that Moscow is a village in the constituency of Kilmarnock. I do not in this House represent Moscow. Naturally, one would expect an extreme point of view from there. My right hon. Friend's constituent from Moscow is said to have likened
the plight of the Ayrshire farmer to that of the Selma nigger.
I think that is stating it in rather an extreme way, but there are varying degrees of emotional feelings expressed, which hon. Members will find in this report, in which is it said that
Ayrshire farmers lead milk situation outcry.
But there is very small comfort indeed for the Opposition, because I read an expression of opinion of a Mr. John Caldwell—of course, the extremists come from Kilmarnock and not from South Ayrshire—who made what seem very impolite remarks about politics. He said that politics was "a dirty and a rotten game." Just to show his impartiality, after he had stated quite frankly what


he thought of the Government and about the Secretary of State for Scotland, he turned to the previous Secretary of State for Scotland and went on to say:
The biggest laugh of the week was Mr. Michael Noble saying what he would have done, after having done nothing for 13 years.
So hon. Members can take it that at the present time Ayrshire farmers take an extremely poor view of the politicians.
We can, of course, understand that emotional outburst. Everybody who asks for a rise is disappointed if he does not get it, and these are honest expressions of feeling among the farmers of Ayrshire, and it would be useless to say that they are not extremely disappointed and that they had even expected something better from a Labour Government.
To reduce it to its statistical level, I have here figures about milk producers in my own constituency. I do not take the figures for the large farmers but for the medium farmers. I am told by the statistician of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board that between 1958 and 1964 the average number of cows a herd in Ayrshire ranged from 45 to 47—on the medium-sized farms, not the very small farms, not the very big farms. Their profit in 1958–59 was £1,460; their profit less value of manual work by farmer and wife, £884. The next year, 1959–60, it went down to £858 profit less manual work by farmer and wife. It went down in the last full year of the Conservative Government to £780, and leaving £49 profit less value of manual work by the farmer and his wife. If the House thinks this is a queer way of assessing income I may say that I think that it is perfectly justifiable, because farmers' wives deserve to be taken into consideration, too. In 1963–64 the average year's profit was £900; profit less value of manual work by farmer and wife, £150.
So we can see that the farmer, the average, medium-sized farmer, is not having what we would call the income enjoyed by the better paid sections of workers in my constituency. I think it only fair to point out that the number of producers went down by 2·94 per cent. in 1962; in 1963 it went down by 3·57 per cent.; last year, by 4·58 per cent.
The Minister was reassuring today when he said that there was a margin

of 45 per cent., but there is talk among the farming community that the time may come when this might lead to a serious crisis in Ayrshire. We must always see the figures in perspective, the farmers' figures and the Government's figures.

Mr. Paul Dean: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the figure of 45 per cent. which the Minister mentioned is not agreed by the N.F.U.s? They would put the figure very much smaller than that.

Mr. Hughes: There are always statistical differences between the N.F.U. and the Minister, but my answer is that I believe that the situation is serious enough to make us wonder whether it would not have been a wise policy in this Price Review to have been more generous towards the dairy farmers.
I express the point of view of my constituents, but I have to remind them, too, that the whole question of agriculture cannot be divorced from the rest of the economy, and that our job must be to build up the economy on sound lines in face of the difficulties which have been bequeathed to us by the previous Government.
I turn to a very interesting article in The Scottish Farmer by its political correspondent who, for me, puts the argument very clearly when he asks what the farmers will do now:
Block the road with tractors? Bash up eggs in Parliament Square? Picket Whitehall Place? It would perhaps he more relevant for farmers to join the Aldermaston Ban-the-Bomb march.
Well, that appeals to me. At least there is a connection between defence expenditure and the Price Review, and there, I think, the political correspondent of The Scottish Farmer has put his finger right on the problem.
As I have said before, during the past decade or so, we should have been spending more on green grass and less on Blue Streaks, and we must realise that agriculture is as important a section of the national economy as defence expenditure. When we are prepared to prune the Defence Estimates and transfer money for the buildings and other things which are required, I think we are on the right way to strengthen the economy of the agricultural industry. Of course,


this is not a new theme for me. I repeat what I have said before, that I would much prefer to see the money we are to see spent on Cyprus this year spent on agriculture, on reclaiming the land, building the buildings, because that would be a permanent investment in the real economy of this country. I am not like my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). I do not begrudge giving subsidies to the agricultural community if they mean a permanent investment in a sound agricultural industry in this country.

Mr. William Hamilton: My hon. Friend must not distort my views. I do not object to subsidies as such. I object to the fact that nobody seems to know where they go. Farmers say that they do not get them. The housewife says that she does not get them. The middleman says that he does not get them. Where do they go? If I can find out, I might regard them in a different light.

Mr. Hughes: I shall enlighten my hon. Friend in a moment or two, although he has attacked me from the rear when I thought he was in a different seat.
I am not interested in prosperous and wealthy farmers. I am interested in the agricultural labour, the farm server, the shepherd, the people who depend on these subsidies for a rise in their standard of living, and I do not want any irresponsible scrapping of these subsidies before we have worked out a long-term policy.

Mr. Peter Bessell: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the subsidy is provided not merely to assist the farmer but to keep the price of food down generally throughout the country, and therefore assists the whole community?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife has heard those remarks. I do not need sermons on that theme.
I should like to enlighten my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West, who I am glad to see is taking such an interest in this debate. I know where some of the money is going. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) gave us an interesting account of different farm incomes. I have spoken about the small farmer with the small income, and I want now to give some

facts about a farmer with a large income. The Daily Express of 8th September, 1964, carried the story of a large farmer who the previous day had auctioned off two Lanarkshire farms, bringing him in £97,750 for 2,128 acres, and said that the sale should not make too serious an inroad into the acreage, because at a recent estimate the owner's estates included 56 large farms in Lanarkshire alone. If my hon. Friend wants to find out who that large farmer is, he will find his name at the top of the Opposition Motion saying that they have lost confidence in the Government. [HON. MEMBERS:" Where is he?"] I do not know. He joined the National Farmers' Union after he became Prime Minister. He will probably read what I have said, but here we have some facts which I think will appease my hon. Friend who is my most formidable opponent in this debate.
That is a large sum of money for two farms. What happens? Farmers have to go to the banks to get money, and I am told that they lend it at 8½ or 9 per cent. In Scotland overdrafts to farmers amount to £56 million, and in the whole of the country, according to the Farmer and Stockbreeder, they amount to £550 million. If the prosperous farmer succeeds in becoming a bank director, he gets it both ways.
My constituents are greatly concerned about rents. The Scottish Farmer of 28th November last carried an article by its regular contributor, a working farmer who is recognised as an influential voice in the farming world of Scotland, in which he said:
Farm rents in many cases have gone to heights which can be crippling unless the guarantees follow quickly.
The crippling has gone on but the guarantees have not followed them.
Many rents have been doubled, some trebled, and in exceptional cases even more. It is not unknown for rental increases to amount to the equivalent of 2d. a gallon of milk…
The rent position and the question of security of tenure are bound up together, and are indeed inseparable.
I know of almost ransom values having had to be paid for the inclusion of a son in the tenancy, if ever such agreement can be bought at all.
Yet the whole question of rents is overlooked by the Opposition. We have heard many questions, and many


speeches, from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but nobody has mentioned that one of the biggest costs to the farmer is the rent he has to pay the landlord. I am sure that the Sections of the 1957 Act which deal with security of tenure are at the bottom of this situation, and this is the view of my farming constituents.
What about the position in the country as a whole? In The Economist last week there was an interesting article, not the one that has been quoted already, entitled, "A farm of one's own", which said:
But it is in the country that the biggest boom of all in rents is taking place. The price of agricultural land is roughly ten times as high as before the war. Indeed, the average price of farming land has more than doubled since 1958, and it is the farmers' oft repeated and sometimes justified complaint that these prices are out of all proportion to the returns available for farming
It is because hon. Gentlemen opposite are not representative of the farming community at all that they make no protest when farming rents are forced up, and all this talk about not having confidence in the Government is just so much humbug and so much nauseating nonsense.
The article to which I have just referred goes on to say:
The prospect of eventual planning permission for development is one stimulating factor, but the rise has been geographically widespread and by no means confined to land adjoining the big centres of population. The attraction of land for death duty purposes—it bears a lower rate of duty—is another reason.
Not a word has been said about those costs to the farmer.
There is then this rather interesting sentence:
British farming land, amazingly, is the cheapest in Northern Europe"—
It is not much satisfaction to know that here we have been exploited to a lesser extent than has the chap in Western Europe—
and in the expectation of eventual British Common Market membership Continental buyers have recently been in the market.
It would be interesting to know what the Continental buyer would get if he tried to bid for any of these farms in North Lanarkshire. The Opposition's neglect to deal with some of these facts shows the complete weakness of their case.

They are trying to exploit the grievances of the farmers for purely political purposes. The farmers know it, hence the remarks of the farmer from Moscow.
Apart from the interchange of pleasantries in this debate, we have had running through it the undertone of a long-term policy. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), we need more money for buildings, more for land, more for tractors, more for land reclamation. We could get this money if we diverted the resources now being wasted on other things and directed it where it should be spent in the national interest. What would have happened if hon. Members opposite had been returned to power, say, by 50 seats at the last election? We should have had a much worse Annual Price Review than this one.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: How does the hon. Member expect his pearls of wisdom to be appreciated when none of the three Ministers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is present in the Chamber?

Mr. Hughes: The Ministers from the Agricultural Department know quite well that I can look after myself and that I do not need their assistance. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland saw me rise, he said to himself that he could go away to his dinner knowing that his case was safe in my hands.
If the Opposition had been returned to power, they would have had to face the same financial crisis and balance of payments problem. They would have had the £ "groggy", and what would they have done? We were told last week in the early hours of one morning that Ulster wanted an aircraft carrier costing £60 million which, with the aircraft, would total £200 million. These are the sort of bills which mount up under a Conservative Government. There would not have been any money left for the farmers or for the equipment of British agriculture. So I say that, in spite of the disgruntlement of farmers in my constituency who looked for better things, I shall be supported when I say that the only possible alternative for me is to go into the Government Lobby against this ridiculous Conservative Motion.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. peter Mills: I speak as a practical farmer; indeed, up to a few months ago, as a working farmer. I have been a working farmer for 24 years.

Mr. Archie Manuel: A tenant farmer?

Mr. Mills: Yes, a tenant farmer and an owner farmer—I had two farms. I still take my share of the farm work at weekends, which is more, perhaps, than can be said of some hon. Members opposite. I mention this to indicate that I have a very real concern for the industry and for all who work on the land. I say to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who I am glad to see is in the Chamber, that what has happened over the Price Review is not just a question of hysteria. It is a question of real concern, there is no doubt about that. I think that the farmers' unions are taking a very responsible attitude. It is perhaps difficult for the unions to control some of their members, but it is not a case of hysteria, it is deep-seated concern.
The farmers view the Price Review with a degree of sadness and almost with dismay. Not all is wrong with the Review, but the parts which are wrong are very wrong. I believe that the Minister knows this. There is no doubt that farmers have been unhappy for a long time, and it is not only this Price Review that has been the cause. I should be dishonest if I did not say so. Farmers have been unhappy for some time, and there is a grave concern in the farming community which has been building up. I do not believe it is true to say that in the past Conservative Members of Parliament have not protested at some of the Price Reviews. I am quite certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) had something to say, and I am quite certain that my predecessor, Percy Browne, protested. Had I been in the House I certainly should have protested, even against my own party.
But the measures taken by my party to control imports, together with other measures, enabled them to give a decent and encouraging Price Review last year. We had encouraging words from the present Minister before he came to power. This gave the farmers a real sense of

progress and confidence in the industry. We felt that we were getting somewhere, but I can assure the Minister that this feeling has now evaporated. Many of the small farmers in my constituency were wooed by the false promises of the Socialists before the election. There is no question about that.

Mr. Manuel: Will the hon. Member apply his mind to this point? If Government from his party had been returned to power at the recent election, where does he think they would have found the money to give a greater return to agriculture than my Government have given, considering that there would have been greater defence expenditure? Would they have sacrificed the old-age pensions to obtain the money? Where does he think that such a Government would have found the money?

Mr. Mills: I am not going to be sidetracked by the hon. Member. I am quite certain that we should not be in the mess economically that we are in now. There is a great lack of confidence in the Socialist Government. We were wooed. Many small farmers in the South-West "dabbled", if I may say so, with Socialist policies. Whatever defence the Minister may put up, he cannot deny that what has happened is very different from what he promised before his party came to power. I am sorry that the Minister is not present, I wish that he were—

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Is my hon. Friend aware that perhaps this is a record absence of Ministers from the Ministry of Agriculture in a debate such as this, and that I hope someone will explain it carefully?

Mr. Mills: I am new to the House, but I must say that I was concerned that the Ministers were not present. I am delighted to see that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is a friend of mine, is on the Government Front Bench, but he has nothing to do with agriculture—

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Thomas): Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Mills: I seem to be giving way quite a lot.

Mr. G. Thomas: I hate to see the hon. Gentleman putting his foot in it. It so happens that I have a great deal to do with agriculture. The Home Office is one of the agricultural Departments; it looks after Ulster.

Mr. Mills: I am not going to be sidetracked by that, either.
I wonder whether the Minister—I wish he were present—remembers his visit to Devon. I wonder whether he remembers his visit to Exeter when he spoke to many hundreds of Devonshire farmers, and what he said on that occasion. I can assure hon. Members that many farmers came away from that meeting convinced that this was the man to follow, that this was the man to lead us. I can assure the House that many small farmers went away with joy in their breasts as they realised what was in store for them under the Socialist Government. I can assure the Minister that this is not now so. This feeling has evaporated completely. Of course, no Minister likes breaking faith with an industry. What has happened is that the Minister has, in the Cabinet, been out-voiced and out-gunned by those who hold the traditional socialist view that agriculture is an expensive nuisance.
This view is only too clear in what I have heard since I have been in the House and what I have heard in this debate. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) said that this was another £11 million poured down the drain. This is the attitude; and this is a very sad experience for me. I did not expect to hear this in the House. Of course, it is not only seen in this debates; it has been seen at Question Time, and I am certain that rural constituencies will take note of this attitude, particularly those in the South-West.
Milk is a product which is vital to the economy of the South-West. Many small farmers rely on milk. Hundreds have been going out of business in the past years, and there is no doubt that hundreds are waiting to go out. It depended entirely on the result of the Price Review. The decision to go out of milk production is not an easy one for a small farmer to take. It is probably one of the biggest decisions he has to make, to give up his monthly milk cheque. It is a vital cheque to him,

month by month. Such a decision is a serious step, and I am certain that the only reason that they are going out of milk production and taking this big decision is that it is not economical.
I am sure that the penny which is to be put on every gallon will not stop this drift away from milk production. The drift may not increase for a few months, but it will certainly become an avalanche towards the autumn unless something is done about it, particularly as the price of barren cows is reaching a fairly good price and there is some recoupment on the loss of milk production. This is not a scare on my part. I am speaking as a practical working farmer when I say that I believe this is a very real danger.
I have said that I am a milk producer. It was not long ago that I was milking fourteen times a week. This is a hard job which goes on and on. It needs to be well rewarded. This is what makes me rather sad as I listen to some of the criticism which has come from the other side of the House. What do hon. Members opposite really know about the drudgery of milking fourteen times a week? I doubt whether they know very much. I would not say anything about a miner with his difficult and dirty job, because I do not know anything about it. I only know that it is a difficult job. I know that some hon. Members will appreciate that milking fourteen times a week is sheer drudgery.
There is no doubt why young men do not want to go into this side of the industry. They do not want to take on the job of the dairy man. Their wives are rebelling. Country folk would like to taste the advantages of the five and a half day week which industry enjoys. Wives are rebelling against their husbands having to milk seven times a week. I am surprised that nothing has been said on this subject. How can farmers pay their workers a decent wage unless they are recouped? I am surprised that hon. Members from the National Union of Agricultural Workers have not spoken about this.

Mr. Bert Hazell: They have not been called.

Mr. Mills: It is most important that farm workers have a decent standard of living and a decent wage. Farmers should be recouped so as to be able to do this.
Men will not go into the dairy industry unless they get a fair return for their labour. As I said in the Agricultural Committee yesterday—and I repeat it because I feel that it is most important that hon. Members should know it—no one will sweat seven days a week" tied to cows' tits", as we say in the West Country. We shall not go on doing this, unless we get a fair return for the work we do, especially if we can earn our living on cereals and beef production, which do not require seven days a week. This is a social problem, and I hope the Minister will remember that there is a very real danger of people leaving milk production because of it. This fact must be learned by hon. Members and by the public. I believe that unless something is done we shall see a greatly increased drift from milk production.
Milk is 15 per cent. cheaper in real terms than it was before the war. I have here my milk cheques—the life-blood of any small farmer—which show that six years ago I was getting more money for my milk than I am today, in spite of the increased costs. In the case of milk, we are justified in asking for a considerable increase. I believe that, as farmers, we have absorbed all the costs which we can in the milk industry. We have put our house in order; there is no doubt about that.

Mr. J. B. Symonds: The hon. Member is speaking on behalf of the small farmer and demanding an increase in the penny per gallon. Where does he expect the money to come from, the consumer or the taxpayer?

Mr. Mills: There is no doubt in my mind that the consumer must pay more. I believe that we have absorbed all the costs we can. What do we need to give the milk industry more drive and to cover our costs? I have said before in the House that 3d. a gallon is necessary. It would mean ½d. a pint to the consumer. What is that, to ensure the housewife has her pint or quart of fresh milk daily? We are not asking for 6d. a gallon. This is overstating our case. I am sorry that the Minister keeps referring to these reports of farmers demanding 6d. a gallon. This is not so. A few might have said so, but what has been asked for is 3d. a gallon; I believe that the Minister

knows in his heart that this is fair and correct.
I should like to ask the Minister many questions, but I shall limit myself to three. What advice would he give the small dairy farmer in the South-West? I do not know what to say to them. By what methods could be absorb any more costs on a dairy farm? Is it fair to the dairy farmer to expect him to go on, doomed to a life of drudgery with such small financial reward? We are not asking for a large profit on milk, but a fair profit, so that we might continue to provide our nation with milk. I believe that there is a danger that the supply may not continue at the level required, particularly with our rising consumption and population. I do not believe there need be great fears of over production; those fears have passed. With the modern sales promotion by the Milk Marketing Board, which has done so much to overcome the problem, I do not fear the future.
I am also concerned about the size of herds. I do not want to see the dairy herds getting larger and larger, which is a serious danger, for one cannot give the care and attention to the large herd that can be given to the medium-sized herd. I do not want to see the farmer with the 30–40-cow herd go out of business.
There is much that I could say about cereals, beef and poultry, in respect of which there are fresh problems as a result of the Price Review. But there is one further question which I should like to put to the Minister about beef. It is rather complicated and I will send him the full details. It is connected with the supplements and abatements of the guaranteed price of 174s. a cwt. If the Minister works it out carefully he will find that unless there is a substantial rise in the market price, the producers will get only the guaranteed price, which is 3s. 5d. a cwt. less than they received last year. They are therefore no better off with the increase of 4s.
I could say much more. This reaction by farmers to the Price Review is not hysteria. It arises from uncertainty and lack of confidence produced by the Price Review. We have never had a revision of a Price Review, but there is always a first time. I ask the Minister to think again. The Government must take steps


to alter some parts of this Price Review. It is up to them to restore confidence in the industry. It is up to the farmers' leaders to produce evidence strong enough to change minds in the Cabinet. This is a great industry which is playing its full part in the economic life of the country. It is worthy of a much better Price Review than it has had.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Bert Hazell: May I first comment on a remark made by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills)? Ever since the debate started I have been trying to take part in it and to put a point of view for the organisation of which I have been a member for many years.
I enjoyed the maiden speech of my near neighbour the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins). His constituency adjoins mine. I am sure that now that he has got that speech off his chest he will feel much more comfortable, because I remember full well making my own maiden speech a few months ago.
Agriculture is one of the largest industries in the country, and without a shadow of doubt it has made tremendous progress. Like other speakers, I draw attention to the increased productivity which has taken place. I do not suppose that there is an agricultural industry anywhere else in the world which has taken as much advantage as has British agriculture of the scientific knowledge and new methods of production and cultivation which have been made available over the years. No other country has stepped up its level of agricultural output to the same extent.
In making his maiden speech the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West said that when he was asked, as a boy, what he would like to do, he was told that he had not the ability to become a farmer nor had his father the wherewithal to finance the project. At that time, during the 1930s, I was an agricultural worker, and I know full well the poverty which then existed in the industry. It existed among farmers on a large scale, farmers on a small scale, and paid employees. During those years of abject poverty, when land was waterlogged and hedges were overgrown, when there was an air

of despondency throughout the countryside, when bankruptcy was the order of the day, when farms were unlettable and were sold at give-away prices, the Tories were in power.

Mr. W. Baxter: Does my hon. Friend recollect that not only were the Tories in power but that it was a Labour Government, which came into power in 1931, which started the great revolution in the farming industry by putting on the Statute Book the Milk Marketing Act, 1931, which was the basis of the prosperity of the farming industry in milk production right up to the present time?

Mr. Hazell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I well recall that it was Lord Addison, then Dr. Addison, who, as Minister of Agriculture, was responsible for placing the Milk Marketing Act on the Statute Book, as a consequence of which the Marketing Board was established. The hon. Member for Torrington referred to that Board and proudly showed his milk cheques to the House.
I am also mindful of the fact that the major move in bringing about a prosperous agriculture was achieved under the 1947 Act when Tom Williams was the Minister. It has been interesting to listen to tributes paid to him from time to time by hon. Members opposite and by people outside the House. He was carrying out the policy of the Labour Party, who form the present Government. Subsequently the rural areas had an opportunity of showing their appreciation of that Minister, but, unfortunately, they elected a Government which did not produce the results for which the farmers might have hoped.
Looking back over recent years, it is clear that there have been a number of Annual Price Reviews which have not been agreed by the National Farmers' Union. When I read statements in the Press and hear them made in the House that the present Price Review has been disastrous, I feel that it must be obvious to those who speak on those lines have not read carefully enough the events of past years. Surely one cannot say that a Price Review which gives nearly £10½ million additional money to the farming industry this year is a disastrous Review.
Under the 1957 Act—which I admit was the product of a Tory Government—my right hon. Friend could have substantially reduced the guarantees and, even allowing for additional costs to the value of £29 million, the total guarantee could have been reduced by about £9 million. My right hon. Friend did not choose to do that, although the way had been prepared by the 1957 Act for him to have that action, and instead we have the additional figure of £10·4 million.
To some extent I disagree with the White Paper, just as I disagreed with last year's White Paper. We are told that the additional cost to the industry amounts to about £29 million. Bearing this in mind, we must look at the 1964 White Paper to see what was stated about costs and efficiency. On page 8 we read:
The main item is an increase in the cost of labour.
When we look at the figures allowed for that increased cost of labour last year we find that the White Paper provided for a sum of £13·65 million. In this year's White Paper, under the section on costs and efficiency, we find these words:
The main item is a rise in agricultural wage rates.
We find, on looking at the figures relating to last year, that the wage rates increase cost only £1·5 million. So £1·5 million was the actual rise in cost, although in last year's White Paper more than £13 million was provisionally provided for that cost. In this year's White Paper the sum of £29 million is allowed for and is, we are told, the main item for agricultural wages.
I suggest that when this year's balance sheet is made up we will not find this main cost factor being due to a substantial rise in wages. In this connection, when assessing labour costs we should remember that at the time of the Review the number of workers in the industry is the basis on which the cost factor is arrived at, although each week and month we see a continual movement of labour from the land. The most recent published figures show that more than 17,000 regular workers left the land last year.
This movement from the land is bound to be reflected in labour costs. Thus, the difference between the estimated £13 million and the actual increased cost of

only £1½ million. I am satisfied that a similar situation will prevail when the current year's balance sheet is made up. It will not be anything like the level for which my right hon. Friend has provided in assessing the additional cost figure of £29 million.
The farmers' net income is running at the all-time high record of £472 million. an increase of £63 million over the previous year. This is a substantial increase and must be borne in mind when assessing how much the taxpayer should guarantee over and above the actual cost last year.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the drift of farm workers from the land—and I recognise that he knows more about this subject than most hon. Members—would he say that this year's Price Review has in any way served to arrest the drift about which he is complaining?

Mr. Hazell: This Review, and any other Review—including the particularly generous one agreed last year because of the General Election—is not likely to arrest the drift from the land, which is predominantly due to wage levels and earnings in agriculture being substantially less than those enjoyed in any other occupation.
The suggestion made earlier today that the N.F.U. and the N.U.A.W. might agree a substantial rise with a Ministry assurance that the rise would automatically be covered by increased prices, does not carry much weight with me. My experience is that adjustments of wage rates have usually been recognised in assessing the cost factor when they have become known. I do not expect, under a Labour Government, that if the industry gave something substantial, my right hon. Friend would ignore that fact in assessing the cost, and the obligations of the country to the industry, when negotiating a subsequent Price Review—

Mr. Brewis: Does the hon. Gentleman think that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs would ignore the fact?

Mr. Hazell: Bearing in mind the interest of my right hon. Friend in agriculture, I am sure that he would give very sympathetic consideration to any demand made upon him in the knowledge that it would give a more adequate


reward to the lowest paid workers in industry—

Mr. William Hamling: Can my hon. Friend say from his experience whether the National Farmers' Union would make such an offer?

Mr. Hazell: In 20 years' experience as a negotiator on agricultural wages boards, I have found that we have usually had to fight all the way to secure improved wage rates and working conditions, and I do not imagine that there will be a revolutionary change of outlook in that repect either now or in the immediate future.
The National Farmers' Union is disappointed with the results of its Price Review negotiations, but that is not unusual for any party in negotiations. How often have I entered into negotiations on behalf of my membership full of confidence that my case was worthy of fulfilment in toto, only to come away at the end of the day with a mere fraction of what I had hoped to achieve? Of course, we cannot say that over £10 million is a mere pittance, but one accepts that it is substantially less than those who negotiated on behalf of the farmers had hoped to achieve.
But no good purpose will be served by adopting methods and making speeches such as have been too common in the last fortnight. I have a paper here showing representatives of the East Riding branch of the National Farmers' Union saying, "Fight the political devils." I presume that applies to both sides of this House because, looking at recent Price Reviews, the farmers have not much to thank the Tories for.
Such statements do not help the farmers' cause in the community as a whole. The irrational statements which have been made in recent days have probably prejudiced the majority of members of the public against farmers. This is unfortunate. My organisation and I want to see agriculture continuing to maintain its rightful place in our economy. The industry has contributed much. It has much more to contribute.
I should like to see the country using all the resources available for increasing our production to the maximum in every

sphere. I wish that the United Nations placed much greater emphasis on creating a world food bank. It is tragic that nations which are capable of producing more are, because of economic circumstances and negotiations with other industrial nations, forced to place a curb on production levels. With half the world's population still suffering from starvation, I wish that nations which are capable of producing more would do so and make a greater contribution to meeting the real needs of the world's starving millions.
However, I am a realist. The United Nations has not got down to the job of creating the necessary distributive agency so that we could maintain our prosperous agricultural industry and at the same time assist those who need the results of what we and other nations are capable of producing.
The hon. Member for Torrington was on a good point when he spoke about the type of job that a cowman has to perform. Whatever is done about the Price Review, whatever price is fixed for milk, I am satisfied that employers will find it increasingly difficult to get workers to take on a seven day a week job. It is suggested that we might move towards small and medium-sized cow herds, but the fact remains that there will have to be a trend towards larger herds. There will have to be some method by which workers can be given time off each week to spend with their families and do little domestic jobs, because I believe that in the future young men will not take on a job which allows them no leisure, nor will they take on a job which offers a rate of pay which falls far short of the rate paid to unskilled labourers in many other occupations.
Marketing is all essential. I was glad to be able to serve on the Standing Committee which considered the Cereals Marketing Bill. The provisions of that Measure are a step in the right direction. However, I wish that the scope of the Measure had been wider so as to take in imports. I wish that we had greater control over the import side, because this would be a considerable help to our cereal growers and would make the Measure more effective than it is likely to be as it deals only with home-grown cereals.
I welcome the fact that there is in due course to be a meat and livestock commission. I hope that we shall see a Measure wider in scope which not only deals with imports and home production, but also represents the consumer interest. I want to see effective marketing machinery for all the commodities we grow. There is a great future for our agriculture. This Price Review opens a new door. I hope that as the door is now ajar for new thinking and new ideas it will be pushed wider and that we shall utilise to a fuller extent the possibilities of our agriculture industry.
The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) referred to the possibility of negotiations covering a longer term than 12 months. I confess that I do not like this horse-dealing every 12 months and if it is possible for the Government, with the industry, to think of ways and means of determining prices over a long term, subject to certain inevitable changes in the cost factor, this would be of great advantage in planning the future of British agriculture.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Richard Stanley: I am certain that everyone who heard the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) would agree with what he said about wanting a good return for the agricultural worker. I shall return to that theme later, but there is one definite theme which seems to me to have run through the whole debate and that is that everyone is against this Price Review. Hon. Members opposite criticised it, saying that it was the Conservatives' fault. The Conservatives are all disappointed, and when the Liberal, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie) spoke he blamed both sides equally and, therefore, I do not know quite where he stood.
We feel when we listen to hon. Members opposite that most of them are not very keen on agriculture. This is true, and the Minister knows it better than anyone. They always think that they can catch a speaker on this side of the House by asking us whether we think the price of milk should be pushed on to the consumer.

Mr. James Tinn: Would not the hon. Member agree that there have been at least as many hon. Members

on this side of the House speaking in the debate as there have been on the benches opposite?

Mr. Stanley: I do not see how that comes into it. We on this side can speak in a debate on nationalisation, but that does not mean that we are keen on it.

Mr. Peart: Is the hon. Member aware that the two most successful Ministers who have advocated the most progressive thinking on agriculture were Lord Addison, on marketing, and Tom Williams with the 1947 Act?

Mr. Stanley: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is in for a difficult time, because he knows that every Question put to him by his hon. Friends is a dig at the farmers. If the right hon. Gentleman only explained what subsidies meant he would have a much easier time and in future might reach the same stature as Lord Williams. If he had had real support from his own side and from the Cabinet, a fortnight ago "Young Fred" might have had a good win, like Old Tom had last week. If the right hon. Gentleman could explain matters to some of the people who are frightened about food prices going up and are not concerned with giving a fair return to the farmer things would be very much better.
Several references have been made in the debate to the price of milk. I entirely agree with those who have said that an increase of 1d. a gallon is too little. If the Minister had been brave, taken his courage in his hands and put the price up, he would have satisfied people very much more and would have given much more contentment to the industry which is at present so much against him.
The other consequence of cutting down on milk affects the number of cows sold and this, in turn, affects the beef herds. Nowadays, except for Channel Islands herds, they are all dual-purpose. If people start to kill off the cows, for which they can now get a pretty good price, and stop producing the milk, the material for building up our beef herds for the future will suffer. This is something which should not be ignored. Producing really high quality beef today does not yield a very big profit. If a man has bad luck and loses one or two, all his profits are likely to go. I am not suggesting that there is not probably quite


a good profit on the barley-fed younger ones when one can sell them, but the people who produce really good beef do not make much profit, and, of course, beef in this country like all our other foods, is cheaper than anywhere else in Europe.
At the moment, the Egg Marketing Board and the National Farmers' Union are trying to bring out a scheme for eggs. They have a very difficult task before them. There are many people with comparatively few hens, 5,000 or 10,000, and these are the ones who ought to be protected so that they may know whether it will be economical for them to carry on. There is a tendency now for people to go into egg production in a really big way. In Lancashire, someone is buying a mill and hopes to put half a million hens in it. If this sort of thing develops and eggs are massproduced in that way, the small man, apart from selling the few dozen at the farm gate, will not be able to carry on. If there is no scheme, these people are likely to be knocked out and disaster will come. I regard it as a mistake for the Minister to have taken off the 1d. a dozen. Could he not have waited until, say, next year when it is likely that a scheme will have been brought out?
It is useless to have over-production of either milk or eggs. No one in his senses wants that, but the Minister has struck a nasty blow at the small egg producer, of whom there are very many in the country. The right hon. Gentleman, by hitting the small milk producer and egg producer, has not helped by any means. Much the same applies to the other small farmers—I am not talking about hill farmers—whose interest is in pigs. Everyone knows that bacon production calls for great skill. It is a difficult job and the profit is by no means great. Once small farmers are unsure of their future, we shall run into more difficulties.
The bigger farmers could have more security and, being given greater grants, they would be able to pay proper wages to the people they employ. The temptations to farm workers are sometimes very great. When the M.6 motorway was being built through Lancashire, one farm worker, who had learnt his job as a tractor driver on the farm, went off and

drove one of those enormous machines which moves the soil and, doing a lot of overtime, earned up to £36 a week. With temptations like that before them, we cannot expect to keep workers in agriculture with the wages which they should have unless there is a fair return for everyone. The small farmer must get it for himself. The bigger ones who employ workers must be sure of securing a reasonable profit. As I have said, food in this country is cheaper than it is anywhere in Europe. Let us see that farmers have a proper return so that everyone can have a healthy, contented and reasonably prosperous life in the industry.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. William Baxter: At the end of this debate, I have five minutes in which to present my case on the very important subject of the Price Review. I consider that a revision of the principle of Price Reviews is long overdue. It is time we got down to a new approach to the problems which confront the agricultural industry.
I ask my right hon. Friend to consider a very important aspect of hill cattle subsidies based principally on the winter keep scheme. Everyone seems to be agreed that it is desirable and necessary to increase our herds. My right hon. Friend has indicated that this will be done by giving an extra £1 for hill cows and an extra 10s. for calves. However, I suggest that my right hon. Friend would do well to consider cutting down the period during which a breeder has to keep a calf before it qualifies for subsidy. If he could cut it down to four to six months he would help considerably in increasing the herds of upland farmers. The upland farmer has this difficulty that he must get the fodder for the calves, and by reason of the time that they are born, it is well into the winter time before he can sell them. If he could sell them earlier, he would probably be able to keep an extra cow right through the winter time because he would have sufficient food.
Also in regard to the hill cattle subsidy and the winter keep scheme, Scottish farmers should be put on a par with their English neighbours. It is true that the English system has been altered by my hon. and right hon. Friends by basing


it upon the heads of the cows kept on the holding as against the amount of cropland which we have on our hill farms. My contention is that, because of the difficult conditions which prevail in many parts of Scotland, the farmers receive very little subsidy under the winter keep scheme on the basis of acreage being cultivated for winter keep purposes. It would be much better for many Scottish farmers if their winter keep subsidy were based upon the heads of the bovine population which they have. This is an extremely important point.
Another aspect which deserves much further consideration is the great and difficult problem of milk supplies. I congratulate the Minister upon giving us an excellent explanation of the problem which confronts him and the small dairy farmer if the production of milk increases considerably because one puts a great deal of that milk into manufacture. But what should be devised is a scheme whereby the milk going to manufacturing purposes could be underwritten by a Government special subsidy so that it could be diverted to the manufacture of cheese, butter and so on. If necessary, this should be channelled into an export trade to countries which need and desire the surplus from our farming industry.
There is no doubt that there exists the great problem of balancing our position as agriculturists with our position as industrialists. There is no doubt that if we do not face up to this in the not too far distant future we shall find out our grave mistake. Let there be no mistake about it; Britain is not, as she used to be, the workshop of the world. She has ceased to be that. Therefore, we must have regard to the co-ordination which ought to exist between agriculture as an industry and industry and agriculture. The preconceived notions of former Governments about bringing into being certain agreements for food, such as those with E.F.T.A., the Common Market and even the Commonwealth, must be revised in the spirit and understanding of the day and generation in which we live. Hon. Members need only look at tonight's evening papers, which contain predictions about the Budget. There is no doubt that the difficult situation in which the Government and the country find themselves, which is due to the

terrific imbalance between our exports and imports, is a warning not only to the agriculturist but also to the industrialist.
The Government must look at this problem afresh to get new ideas and new impetus into the development not only of industry but of agriculture. Let us not forget the simple fact that neither can be divorced from the other. Industry is dependent upon agriculture and agriculture is dependent upon industry. If any Government ever ceased to recognise that simple fact, then their folly would rest squarely on their shoulders in the years ahead. Britain must give a lead in a new conception which must inter-relate industry with agriculture and agriculture with industry.

9.0 p.m.

Mr Michael Noble: We have had the pleasure today—and I think that I speak for the whole House in saying so—of listening to the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk. South-West (Mr. Hawkins). He admitted to two things: first, the length of time that it had taken him to prepare himself for what to many of us is a terrifying day, and secondly, that during the war he spent five years surrounded by the Highland Division. I am not certain which of these experiences he will look back on as being the worse, but I am sure that we all enjoyed the way he spoke, appreciated very much the things he said and hope to hear from him on many other occasions.
A few days ago in the town of Dunblane in Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland addressed what I know well to be a rather terrifying meeting of the N.F.U. He told the farmers that they did not need a referee but somebody who was on their side. This is only too obviously apparent, because the farming community has always looked to the Minister of Agriculture in England and to the Secretary of State in Scotland as being persons who were on their side and who were prepared to fight on their behalf if necessary with their colleagues in the Cabinet.
It is right and proper for the farmers to feel that way. In this context, I will quote what the right hon. Gentleman had to say in a debate on agriculture in 1960 when there was also a certain amount


of serious worry by the farming community. The right hon. Gentleman said:
We are dealing with a serious subject, because Scottish farmers do not get upset over nothing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 28th June, 1960; c. 108.]
If it was serious then, how much more serious is it today when not only the Scottish farmers but the English, Welsh and Northern Irish farmers are showing themselves to be thoroughly upset.
So upset are the farmers that, perhaps for the first time in the memory of any hon. Member, we have had the farmers' lobby coming from the furthest parts of the country to give the views of the farming community to hon. Members. They have done this because they have felt that in putting their views to their Ministers of Agriculture they have failed to convince them. Therefore, they have come to the House of Commons, entailing journeys of 300, 400, 500 and even 600 miles, in the hope that hon. Members will see that their viewpoint and feelings are properly expressed today.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, making his speech, which was not so much a speech but more of a lecture, because it was read out—I can remember very well having to do the same, but I do not ever remember an occasion when I was so scared of losing my place that I would not give way to anyone—

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not true. I was not prepared to give way to what I thought were irresponsible interventions, but I did give way in the end. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have never shirked a debate in the House in my twenty years.

Mr. Noble: The right hon. Gentleman has become much more pompous since he has been on that side of the House. I know that he has much more to be pompous about, but it is none the less true that he read a very long and in many ways extremely inaccurate speech.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): Not as inaccurate as the right hon. Gentleman's.

Mr. Noble: The right hon. Gentleman has not heard my speech. In the same way that the Minister of Agriculture is

suggesting that his speech was better than mine, he has taken it on himself to decide which of my hon. Friends who rose to ask questions—

Mr. Peart: Why not?

Mr. Noble: I know the right hon. Gentleman, and I am fairly certain that he was carefully avoiding anyone who could ask him a question which he could not answer.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) opened the debate very quietly and calmly and gave the House a very reasonable statement of the whole agricultural situation as the farmers and my hon. and right hon. Friends see it today. On the other hand, the Minister, whose speech I am certain was written in Transport House—

Mr. Peart: Do not be silly.

Mr. Noble: Knowing a good deal about civil servants—

Mr. Peart: Mr. Peart rose—

Mr. Noble: I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman every second. Knowing a good deal about civil servants and their tremendous political impartiality, I know that many of the total inaccuracies in his speech could not possibly have been penned by them.

Mr. Peart: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the speech is my own. I did not consult Transport House in any way, but I am certain that a Transport House speech would be better than a Conservative Central Office speech.

Mr. Noble: The right hon. Gentleman has now explained the whole matter. It is usual when one is to read a brief or speech to have it prepared, or at least looked at, by one's civil servants. As in this case it was the right hon. Gentleman's own speech, that explains why there were so many inaccuracies
The right hon. Gentleman rightly stressed that there were one or two good items in the White Paper. I do not think that anybody would deny that. The extension of the small farmers' scheme, costing about £250,000 in the right hon. Gentleman's estimate, and the new scheme for credits, costing £200,000,


are things of which both the industry and the House approve in general. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) that one of the most useful individual items in the White Paper, which is very small, is the special help for keeping records, because this is something in which the smaller farmers in the country as a whole have been comparatively unsuccessful through not having sufficient information about how their businesses are being operated.
The Minister has done many rather curious things in the White Paper. For the first time in the history of White Papers, I think—I have looked back—he appears in paragraph 66 to claim for the Government some credit for the actual and normal weather basis, although it seems to me a little odd to do so, for two reasons. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on whom the right hon. Gentleman is clearly modelling, himself—I hope that he does not model himself on the same conditions which applied in Lord Williams' day—did on one occasion, like other Ministers after him, give extra to the farming community. In spite of the adjustment for bad weather, extra seemed to be given. On this occasion, the right hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that because the weather was good—and the harvest was in before he came to office—the farmers could get worse treatment than usual.
I turn to one or two Scottish points, although I know that this is a United Kingdom debate. In the figures which the Minister produced, the increase of £63 million in the farmers' income, for normal weather, is quite impressive. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to give us the breakdown of that figure for Scotland, because I suspect that the weather in Scotland during harvest time was a great deal worse and that farmers in Scotland got a good deal less on this occasion than their fair share.
I ask the Secretary of State to consider a rather special point on the problem of milk producers which has not been raised in the debate, although a great deal has been said,rightly,about the milk problem as a whole. As he knows, there are a good many milk producers in islands off the West Coast and North

Coast of Scotland, and in a number of them there are also creameries. I have felt for some time that in conditions of this sort, where milk production among smaller farmers is at least in some doubt, there may be a good opportunity of giving special help to producers in these islands because they are easily identifiable and their milk goes almost entirely either into the local market or into the creamery. If the milk producers in those areas give up that type of production, employment will fall not only on the farms but in the creameries.
Like the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) and others, I welcome the help for the hill sheep farmers. I do not think the Minister will expect me to quarrel with that as I made a speech advocating it about a month ago. I also agree with the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) in his advocacy of a special headage payment under the winter keep scheme, which I also mentioned in the same speech. I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman's support on that.
I return to the White Paper. What the Minister of Agriculture seemed to be trying to avoid was the fact that the National Farmers' Union has not only quarrelled with the milk price or the cereals price, but has disagreed with this Price Review across the board, in spite of the fact that, as I said, at the beginning of my speech, there are several items in the White Paper which they welcome. I am perfectly certain that this absolute disagreement across the board is a real indication of what they feel about this Price Review.
The Minister and other speakers have tried to suggest that this is synthetic resentment. I think that the Minister referred to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe as an attempt to try to work up some sort of synthetic resentment. That, amongst other reasons, was why I suspected that Transport House had written his speech, and had written it several days ago.
My right hon. Friend could not have been more moderate. If he and the Secretary of State for Scotland have met, as I am sure they have, the leaders of the National Farmers' Union, they will know that they, too, have been doing everything which they reasonably could to


damp down the real resentment that is coming up from the branches throughout the country. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not agree with me, I hope that they will say so, because that is my information and I believe it to be true.
The resentment which the farming industry feels is centred basically on the question of incomes. I accept, as one must, that this is a problem which has been working through the industry for a number of year—[Interruption.]—for 13 years if one likes. The real picture, however—and everyone who has been in the agriculture industry, including the leaders of the unions, knows it—is that as my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate, we have been changing from the superb sellers' market of Lord William's day through a period when surpluses, first of one commodity and then of another, appeared in different parts of the world and finally began to appear here. Both sides of the House, have, in the main, co-operated with the farmers in trying to find the right solution to their problems.
Last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames) had finally created the situation in which the open-ended nature of the subsidies, which had been a considerable worry to both sides, was practically closed. The amount paid out from the Exchequer in subsidies to the farmer had been decreasing rapidly and, therefore, it was the right moment to give the farmers their chance of a considerably increased income. This they appreciated. They were perfectly certain that the same sort of treatment would be given to them this year.
The same conditions apply—£50 million less on the Estimates than was expected. From speeches made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, from the Minister of Agriculture, from the First Secretary of State and from the Minister of Housing and Local Government, the farmers had every possible reason for believing that they would get the same treatment. The resentment has built up because they did not and because this was a real shock throughout the whole farming community.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that we had also made cuts in milk, but his action was, again, part of a dishonest

position, because he did not tell the House that in the year 1959–60 an extra 85 million gallons of milk was produced above the year before, that in the following year an additional 154 million gallons was produced above the extra 85 million gallons, and that in the year after there was another 93 million gallons. In those circumstances, it was absolutely right that the price of milk should be cut because every farmer, and the right hon. Gentleman himself at the time, knew that the situation was impossible.

Mr. Hamling: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Noble: I am sorry, no. I have only ten minutes left to me and I have a lot still to cover.
The main argument against the Review is that if the Minister felt it right—but I think he was wrong—to hold milk production down to a beggarly penny, and a good deal less than that for the farmers of Scotland, he has given no other real incentives in beef, cereals or sheep to which the dairy farmers who may feel that they have to leave that side of the industry can go and hope to make a better profit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West who made his maiden speech today, referred, quite rightly, to the very good labour relations which agriculture has had, and I think that he stirred a chord in the hearts of many of those who know the country when he spoke of the special skills which are now growing up in agriculture.
The hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen told the House that the Minister had accepted a meat board. If he has accepted a meat board he may have told the hon. Lady but he has not told the House. Perhaps he will tell us something more about it before the debate is over.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said that the Minister had been somewhat dishonest in his statement about cereals, and as this has been a question under dispute I think I should like to try to deal with the position as I see it. The cuts in the price of wheat and barley were reduced to the maximum of 4 per cent. which was permitted under the


terms of the 1957 Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister has claimed that these cuts had to be made under the trade agreements which were signed last year. When my right hon. Friend disputed this, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie) read out to the House the terms of that trade agreement. Under this, what are described as price mechanisms operate in full when the whole crops of wheat and barley exceed certain figures. Those figures were exceeded, as he told us, as a result of our 1964 harvest.
But the price mechanisms referred to in paragraph 6 of the agreement which the hon. Gentleman read out have nothing whatever to do with the fundamental support prices paid under our Review system. They apply solely to the price adjustments within the standard quantities structure which rise or fall according to whether the home crops are large or small. What the Government are now doing, and let everybody realise it, is not only to operate the standard quantity adjustments—an addition of 7d. and 9d.—but imposing in addition the maximum cuts under the 1957 Act as well and on top—an extra 1s. 1d. and 1s. 4d.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shocking."]
For the right hon. Gentleman to try to make out that the Government had no alternative is, in my belief, a thoroughly dishonest statement. I am absolutely certain when he has had time to consult the N.F.U. he will find that it would never have signed—they agreed to the trade agreement—under those terms. I do not believe it is the right interpretation, and I think it is highly disreputable for Ministers opposite to try to bring this sort of argument in to defend their Review.
I said at the beginning that the farmers in Scotland were surprised to find that the Secretary of State regarded himself as a referee and not somebody who should be on their side.

Mr. Ross: Mr. Ross rose—

Mr. Noble: I have only a few minutes.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman is really quite wrong. What the farmers were suggesting was—what the blame was—that we should have a special review

kind of referee. They did not suggest I was.

Mr. Noble: If I have done the right hon. Gentleman a wrong in this I am very sorry indeed it should be so. I am merely quoting from reports of the wonderful meeting he had with them. I think that the House as a whole realises the importance of agriculture to the country, and many hon. Members have spoken of their desire to avoid a split between town and country.
I do not see him in his place, but I cannot refrain from quoting a comment of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) who said:
…I object to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench putting down an Amendment supporting an industry when politically we do not get very much out of it. Why waste our time on these people?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1961; Vol. 641, c. 465.]
There are many farmers in the country who feel that that somewhat extreme view—I know that the hon. Gentleman has extreme views—is being represented more widely in the party in Government at the moment than in just one or two places.
Does the farming industry not deserve the support of the Government and the House? Last May I was able to visit Moscow. The right hon. Gentleman went there, too. I was told by two or three senior Soviet officials that they had chosen Britain to have a special exhibition of agricultural equipment and so on because, having made a study of agriculture here, they had found it was more efficient than in any other part of the world. I therefore say that agriculture deserves some support. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that the increase in productivity per man in agriculture is nearly double that of the average of other industries in the country, so it has nothing to be ashamed of there.
People are suggesting that agriculture is not sufficiently modern. I can only say that from my experience I know of no other of our traditional industries which have so freely accepted new ideas, and new systems, and which have been prepared to put their own capital, as well as help from the Government, behind these new ideas. The agricultural industry has accepted new techniques more quickly perhaps than any other industry, and, as I have said, labour relations


in the industry are probably the best in the country, too.
It has been said by one or two hon. Members during the debate that food prices to the housewife have been too high. My right hon. Friend gave the costs of beef. During the last seven years, over the country as a whole, the cost of food has risen by 17 per cent. Perhaps we might compare that with what has happened in other countries. In Spain, which is perhaps not very similar, it has risen by 97 per cent. In France, which is much closer, it has risen by 55 per cent. In Sweden—and the Prime Minister is always telling us that we ought to imitate Sweden—it has risen by 42 per cent. In Holland, another of the most efficient countries in agriculture, it has risen by 29 per cent. One sees, therefore, that on ability and help to keeping prices down for the consumer, farmers have played, and know they have played, an important part in helping the country as a whole.
Farmers also know that as a community they have played a big part, which has been referred to often during the debate, in helping with the balance of payments. There is a record, which is now getting a little worn, and the needle keeps bumping out of the groove, about the economic legacy which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite found when they took office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Wait for it. There is also on record the statement of the right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of this debate that in the last thirteen years the Conservative Party have not done one single thing for agriculture. Will the right hon. Gentleman please explain to the House how it was that he was nodding his head all the way through the remarks that I made about the efficiency, the productivity and the low costs all of which happened during the last 13 years?
Last year farming incomes were at a record level, something which the right hon. Gentleman tries to claim for himself. Does not he realise that, in the light of this, he and his Government, having lost the confidence of businessmen of all sorts through their incompetence, have now, as a result of the Price Review, lost the confidence of the farming community as well. They have lost this confidence largely because they made promise after promise in order to obtain the votes of

the people. It is, I think, even among Socialists when in Government, normal, if they fail to bring home one single chicken from the many eggs they have laid, to face the consequences of that and to resign.

9.32 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): We had two very interesting maiden speeches and one "semi-maiden" during this debate and they merit the congratulations which hon. Members extended to the speakers. I must confess that I did not find anything very uncontroversial in the speech of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins). It may well be that he spent too long on it and decided that he would put some bite into it. Who am I to criticise him? The hon. Member said that he lost some of his docility having spent part of the war alongside the Highland Division. As one who was in the Highland Light Infantry, I am surprised that his speech was so temperate.
We were happy to see the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) back in his place. He could not have received any great comfort from the vote he got and certainly not from the support he expected—and did not get—as a result of the Price Review. I was surprised at the ex-Secretary of State. Why he should call the meeting of the Farmers' Union terrifying I do not know. I was there last Friday and it was the most pleasant, amiable and appreciative meeting that I have addressed for a long time. All I can say is that the applause I got at the end was only a little greater than the applause at the next meeting I went to—the annual meeting of the Labour Party in Scotland.
I suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they rather played up things today. We had the former Patronage Secretary telling us that there were unprecedented scenes after the Price Review, with hon. Members rising from their seats, having spontaneously interpreted the will of the people. We had a Price Review in 1962 in which £9 million was taken off the guarantees, not £10 million or £11 million added to them. In 1958, there was a Price Review in which the guarantees were reduced by £l9 million and the Minister of Agriculture of that time said, "We are leaving £2 million which we


could have taken off." The maximum reduction at that time was £21 million. the first year after the 1957 Act.
Where were the hon. Gentlemen then? They were not interpreting the will of the farmers. The former Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) knows this, because he made a speech in that year in which he told us about farmers' unions up and down the country demanding the resignation of the then Tory Minister of Agriculture. He did not tell us about a march on London, but about tractors converging upon London from the farming areas, and about the Scottish Farmers' Union roundly condemning the Government. From Ayrshire, a telegram went astray which demanded the resignation of the Prime Minister.
How did hon. Gentlemen then interpret the will of their farming friends and constituents? They were the silent senators in those days, all except one—give him due credit—the man who, as a result of the speech which he delivered in the country, was made Secretary of State for Scotland at the first available opportunity. I should like to give this quotation from "Candid Commentary" in the Scottish Farmer of 26th March, 1960:
Quoth Mr. Michael Noble, M.P. for North Argyll 'the present system of allocating agricultural subsidies is often like pouring water into to leaky bucket. I am tired of the system whereby a farmer is handed money merely for having something. It kills initiative and makes him lazy'.

Mr. Noble: If the right hon. Gentleman had happened to be present during the course of that interesting and accurate speech, he would know that I was complaining that, in certain cases, the Government did not give enough to the farming community to make and keep farming viable. I would make exactly the same comment about this Price Review.

Mr. Ross: This is what he said to the farmers in 1960, when his Government were cutting the guarantees by £9 million. We are increasing the guarantees by over £10 million and we are making farms viable to a much greater extent than was ever done. If the right hon. Gentlernan really believed what he said when he became Secretary of State for Scotland, can he tell us why he did not

implement all these things which he spoke about? He told us tonight that he was getting worried about the creameries and the milk producers on the islands. He was not worried in the years when the Government not only did not increase the amount by 1d. a gallon but rdeuced it by 1d. a gallon and then by ¼d. and then by 0·4d. There was an increase of 0·8d. but only on the understanding that farmers would produce a scheme to increase production and, when they did not, it was taken away to the extent of 50 per cent. Hon. Members had all these opportunities and did nothing. Then the right hon. Gentleman goes around Scotland, and Roxburgh in particular, making speeches.

Mr. Hamling: We now know why they lost at Roxburgh.

Mr. Ross: We get the reaction from the Scottish Farmer of 27th March in a report of the Ayrshire conference:
The biggest laugh of the week was Mr. Michael Noble saying what he would have done after having done nothing for 13 years.
After only a few months of Government we are starting upon what I think has been accepted in the debate as the very considerable and serious problem of getting right the structure of British agriculture. British agriculture is basic to the economy of the country and to our balance of payments. Many hon. Members do not appreciate that over the last 10 years there has been a considerable increased effort by agriculture in respect of items previously imported. It is wrong to say that we have denied agriculture participation in a growing home market. British agriculture has participated to a great extent, and to my mind this Review and further Reviews which will follow will enable it to play an ever-greater part in meeting the demand and in facing up to the balance-of-payments problem.
But let us appreciate that the agricultural industry which must do this is an industry which has many problems and that it is not one of which we can speak in isolation, separated from the rest of the country and the country's difficulties. I remember the speech by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), I think in 1960, when these reductions were made. He said that the reductions in the guarantees were harsh


but that they were right in the economic circumstances of the country. I reckon that the economic circumstances of the country are such that today we might even be criticised for generosity in this Price Review. That is why I consider that it is fair and right in the circumstances—not isolating the industry from the circumstances of the country but looking to the present position and what we have done. In 1960, the right hon. Gentleman criticised his Government—and I give him credit for it—because he said of a White Paper that what was lacking was a failure to give a long-term guarantee; he said that the outlook was such that there was no confidence by farmers in the industry.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that in this debate he has been accused by his hon. Friends of being too generous to the farmers.

Mr. Ross: Unlike the hon. Member, I have heard the whole of the debate. Here we are taking steps—and these will not be the last steps which will be taken—in relation to the problem areas of the industry. They have been dismissed by some people connected with the National Farmers' Union as fringe benefits, but hon. Members should appreciate from the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), which bear this out, that we are dealing with units in which there are only nine cows. My hon. Friend quoted the figure of 33,000 agricultural holdings with from 10 to 19 cows. We cannot expect to get viability there, and we cannot expect, with guarantees right across the field, to do as much as we could be doing to get the shape of the industry right by directing our attention to those holdings and those farms which are feeling the pinch and which, with proper help, could be made viable. We are changing the Small Farmer Scheme and the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) will be interested to hear that the figure is not £200,000 but £5 million.

Mr. Noble: Mr. Noble rose—

Mr. Ross: I must get on. What we are doing now is changing the emphasis from husbandry to management to ensure

that, within the organisation of business, there will be a greater appreciation of exactly how to create properly viable farms. The figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley in regard to the present Scheme—that after the three years about 50 per cent. went out of being—were about right. This shows that something is wrong with the present Scheme, for if we spent money for three years on a small farm and then it goes, that must be wasted money. From this point of view, therefore, we consider that this improvement, which brings in Scotland 3,000 more farms into the Scheme and applies it with a new emphasis, will give a far better return for efficiency.
I will now deal with the milk question, but before doing so I will have a glass of water. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I should mention first, in this connection, that the credit position will be improved, too. The advantage here is that we will now help the younger farmers and small farmers to obtain this credit, something which is denied them at present, because behind them will be the Government guarantee. This will be of considerable help to them, and it is the first time that this has been done in the agriculture industry. The Farmers' Union has been asking for this to be done year after year. Co-operative marketing will also help and, with the Small Farmer Scheme, this represents a major advance.
When we consider the milk issue it should be remembered that we have given a figure of £11 million. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember that the difficulties have arisen during the past 10 or 11 years, during the time of Tory rule. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite must face these facts. I have represented a milk-producing area in the House for 18 years. Indeed, there are probably more milk producers in my constituency than in most constituencies. I am speaking about Ayrshire. [Interruption.] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to interrupt, but my majority is 14,000.
What we are giving in the Price Review for milk is an amount higher than anything given before, apart from last year's 2½d. And from the point of view of production, we have seen, as the result of the squeeze from 1958 to 1962, farmers going out of milk production, so we must


watch the level of production in relation to the need for liquid milk for consumption and for the creameries.
We are satisfied that we are reaching the stage of being able to hold the position, and with the increased efficiency and output from the increasing herd—and I believe that in Scotland the average size of a dairy herd has grown from about 35 to about 45, and that production per cow is up by about 3 per cent.—we consider that we are reaching a position which is about right.
We must face the fact that more than the producer is concerned here, for this is a time when we are trying to obtain stable prices and a proper attitude in industry. Everyone appreciates how vital this is and it would be wrong lightheartedly to pass increases on to the consumer.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Mallon said that the increase should have been 2d. Another hon. Member suggested 2½d. and yet another 3d. I had better warn them that they are liable to be thrown out of the union, if they are officials of it, because the Chairman of the Ayrshire branch—at a time when people were demanding 6d.—said to the Press that he thought that if they talked about 2½d. they would be about right, and he was asked to resign. I am talking about what the other side is asking. We see this spread, and I think that the industry's disappointment is not related so much to the Review itself as to the target those in the industry set themselves of trying to get an increase in income of £100 million—25 per cent.—over three years. That is where I think the disappointment arose. Hon. Gentlemen know quite well that the previous Government did not accept that target, and we did not. No Government could blindly accept such a target.
That is one of the dangers we are in. It is very facile to talk about giving five-year guarantees. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will appreciate that the previous Government extended their guarantee for beef from one year to two years, but do they remember what happened? We got a complete glut, the price went down, and there was a terrific bill for the taxpayer to meet.
I know that the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) was speak-

ing in general but we should appreciate that nothing has happened in relation to the price of milk over the past 10 years that gives us any great justification for a detailed review spread over five years. It may well be that we would be far better to have, within a five-year plan, pointers that would indicate to the agricultural community the direction in which we were moving and continue meantime the Annual Reviews; but we could not make such a change without consulting the unions, although it is probably worth talking about.
It has been said that it was a pity that we could not give the agreed figure for the milk cost increase, but hon. Members will know that there is a convention that I cannot break, much as I should like to, that we do not give these figures publicly. But I can say that the increase we gave more than covered the cost increase. I am sure that the National Farmers' Union will not challenge that.
We have taken steps in relation to the long-term planning of beef production, and have done so by injecting the help throughout. We start with the increase in the calf subsidy—10s. on steer and heifer calves. We go on with £1 on the hill cow, and then we extend the scheme to cover the dairy-type heifer at slaughter. All this adds up to an additional 2s. on the 4s. per cwt. extra for fatstock, which amounts really to 6s. and is an additional guarantee of about £8 million for beef. We think that this has been done in the right way to ensure a growing beef stock.
The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe said that it was not necessary for us to make cuts in wheat and barley prices, and that we had interpreted the Agreements too harshly, but it was the previous Government that signed these Agreements. It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Argyll to go round Roxburgh saying, "We are in Opposition now—we are thinking about our long-term policy." I do not know what they put in their policies at the election, but we all know that the changes they made just before it implied long-term policies.
It is true that the Agreements, while calling for effective corrective action, do not specify what that action should be. Let us weigh this up. The Agreements promise that a fair and reasonable balance will be maintained between domestic


production and imports based on the supply position at the time of the agreement, and give both overseas suppliers and domestic producers the opportunity of a fair and reasonable share of any growth in the market. The Agreement was signed last year. The market has grown. What happened? The home producer took the full growth of the market, plus 800,000 tons, because that is the extent to which imports fell last year.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: A bumper home harvest.

Mr. Ross: It may well be. This is just what they were talking about. But what other effective action could possibly be taken than that which the Government took? It is implicit in the Agreement that was signed. We are tied by that to restore a reasonable balance. I am sure that right hon. Gentlemen know that full well. In addition, in respect of cereals we have raised the standard quantities—250,000 tons for barley and 100,000 tons for wheat.
The question has been raised as to why agriculture should be asked to bear such a high proportion of its costs. Agriculture is unique. Of course it is unique. It is unique because it is agriculture, because since 1947 agriculture has been placed in a unique position, with guaranteed prices and markets and with the injection of taxpayers' money year by year to ensure its stability. Hon. Members opposite, because we have asked farmers to bear a considerable part of

their increased costs, have suddenly for the first time realised that this has been happening year after year. They know it has been happening year after year. Hon. Members opposite have walked into Lobbies supporting harsh Reviews, Reviews which cut down the guarantees by £19 million and by £9 million.

The 1960 White Paper—Cmnd. 1249—said this:
 Every industry, in order to maintain or improve its competitive position, must seek to increase its efficiency…and to use this in part to absorb rising costs.…The grounds for expecting farmers to use part of the gain from increasing efficiency to meet increased costs are the stronger, because included in the Exchequer payments each year is the provision of considerable resources aimed directly at strengthening the industry's competitive power.
This is what the Tories said when they were the Government. What we have had in the past in relation to agriculture was concern by farmers about where the Tory Government were going. In those days Tory back benchers were silent and silenced by the very man who made such a song and dance about this today.

We on this side are satisfied that in all the circumstances this Price Review is fair and just and in many respects is a starting point to long-term policies which will bring greater prosperity and stability to the farming community.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 307.

Division No. 83.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Agnew, commander Sir Peter
Black, Sir Cyril
Channon, H. P. G.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Blaker, Peter
Chataway, Christopher


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Bossom, Hn. Clive
Chichester-Clark, R.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Box, Donald
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Astor, John
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Cole, Norman


Atkins, Humphrey
Braine, Bernard
Cooke, Robert


Awdry, Daniel
Brewis, John
Cooper, A. E.


Baker, W. H. K.
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill


Balniel, Lord
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-col.Sir Walter
Cordle, John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Corfield F. V.


Barlow, Sir John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Costain, A. P.


Batsford, Brian
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bryan, Paul
Crawley, Aidan


Bell, Ronald
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Buck, Antony
Crowder, F. P.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos amp; Fhm)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Cunningham, Sir Knox


Berkeley, Humphry
Burden, F. A.
Curran, Charles


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Butcher, Sir Hubert
Currie, G. B. H.


Bessell, Peter
Buxton, R. C.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Biffen, John
Campbell, Gordon
Dance, James


Biggs-Davison, John
Carlisle, Mark
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)


Bingham, R. M.
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Cary, Sir Robert
Dean, Paul




Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Jopling, Michael
Pym, Francis


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Quennell, Miss, J. M.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Doughty, Charles
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Drayson, C. B.
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kilfedder, James A.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Eden, Sir John
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-Upon-Tyne,N.)
Kirk, P.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Emery, Peter
Kitson, Timothy
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lagden, Godfrey
Roots, William


Farr, John
Lambton, Viscount
Royle, Anthony


Fell, Anthony
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fisher, Nigel
Langford-Holt, Sir John
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fletchcr-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Forrest, George
Litchfield, Capt. John
Sharpies, Richard


Foster, Sir John
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'n C'dfield)
Shepherd, William


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sinclair, Sir George


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Llovd' Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Longbottom, Charles
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Gammans, Lady
Loveys, Walter H.
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Gardner, Edward
Lubbock, Eric
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Gibson-watt, David
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Speir, sir Rupert


Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stainton, Keith


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross amp; Crom'ty)
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
steel, D.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stodart, Anthony


Glyn, Sir Richard
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McMaster, Stanley
Studholme, Sir Henry


Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Summers, Sir Spencer


Goodhew, Victor
Maginnis, John E.
Talbot, John E.


Gower, Raymond
Maitland Sir John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Grant, Anthony
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gresham-Cooke, R.
Mathew, Robert
Teeling, Sir William


Grievem, Percy
Maude, Angus
Temple, John M.


Griffith's, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mauding, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Thatcher, Mrs. Margrate


Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R.J.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)


Gurden, Harold
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hall, John (wycombe)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, w.)


Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mitcheil David
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Harris Reader (Heston)
Monro Hector
van straubenzee, W. R.


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
More, Jasper
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan, W. G.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walder, David (High Peak)


Harvey, John (Walthamstom, E.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derk


Hawkins, Paul
Murton, Oscar
Wall, patrick 


Hay, John
Neave,Airey
walters, Dennis


Heaid, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Ward, Dame Irene


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Nicholls, Sir Godfrey
Weatherill, Bernard


Hendry, Forbes
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Webster, David


Higgins, Terence L.
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hiley, Joseph
Onslow, Cranley
Whitelaw, William


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, Sir Roif Dudley (Exeter)


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hopkins, Alan
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wise, A. R.


Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hornby, Richard
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Woodhouse, Hn. Chridtopher


Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Peel, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Percival, Ian
Wylie, N. R.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, John
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Iremonger, T. L.
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth
Younger, Hn. George


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
pike, Miss Mervyn



Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
pitt, Dame Edith



Jennings, J. C.
Pounder, Rafton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnson Smith, G.
Powe, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Martin McLaren and Mr. Ian MacArthur.


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)




Prior, J, M. L.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Albu, Austen
Armstrong, Ernest
Barnett, Joel


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkinson, Norman
Baxter, William


Aldritt, Walter
Bacon, Miss Alice
Beaney, Alan







Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Gregory, Arnold
Mapp, Charles


Bence, Cyril
Grey, Charles
Marsh, Richard


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony wedgwood
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mason, Roy


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Maxwell, Robert


Binns, John
Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Mayhew, Christopher


Bishop, E. S.
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mellish, Robert


Blackburn, F.
Hale, Leslie
Mendelson, J. J.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mikardo, Ian


Boardman, H.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Millan, Bruce


Boston, T. G.
Harming, William (Woolwich, W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hannan, William
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)
Harper, Joseph
Molloy, William


Boyden, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Monslow, Walter


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bradley, Tom
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hayman, F. H.
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hazell, Bert
Mulley,Rt.Hn.Frederick(SheffieldPk)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Murray, Albert


Brown, R. w. (Shoreditch amp; Fbury)
Heffer, Eric S.
Neal, Harold


Buchanan, Richard
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Newens, Stan


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Norwood, Christopher


Carmichael, Neil
Holman, Percy
Oakes, Gordon


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Horner, John
Ogden, Eric


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


Chapman, Donald
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)


Coleman, Donald
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Orbach, Maurice


Conlan, Bernard
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Orme, Stanley


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Howie, W.
Oswald, Thomas


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Hoy, James
Owen, Will


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Padley, Walter


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Cronin, John
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paget, R. T.


Crosland, Anthony
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Palmer, Arthur


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pargiter, G. A.


Dalyell, Tam
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)


Darling, George
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Parker, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E)
Jackson, Colin
Parkin, B. T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pavitt, Laurence


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pentland, Norman


Delargy, Hugh
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Perry, Ernest G.


Dell, Edmund
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Popplewell, Ernest


Dempsey, James
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prentice, R. E.


Diamond, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dodds, Norman
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Probert, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Donnelly, Desmond
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Randall, Harry


Driberg, Tom
Kelley, Richard
Rankin, John


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Kenyon, Clifford
Redhead, Edward


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter amp; Chatham)
Rees, Merlyn


Dunnett Jack
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Reynolds, G. W.


Edelman, Maurice
Lawson, George
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Leadbitter, Ted
Richard, Ivor


Edward Robert (Bilston)
Ledger, Ron
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


English, Michael
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Ennals, David
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ensor, David
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Robinson, Rt.Hn. K. (St.Pancras,N.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Rose,Paul B.


Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Lipton, Marcus
Rowland, Christopher


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lomas, Kennetn
Sheldon, Robert


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Snore, Peter (stepney)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McBride, Neil
Short,Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)


Floud, Bernard
McCann, J
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)


Foley, Maurice
MacColl, James
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
MacDermot, Niall
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McGuire, Michael
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Ford, Ben
Mclnnes, James
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Skeffington, Arthur


Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McLeavy, Frank
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefleld)


Garrett, W. E.
MacMillan, Malcolm
Small, William


Garrow, A.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Snow, Julian


Ginsburg, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Solomons, Henry


Gourlay, Harry
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Hudderefield,E.)
Spriggs, Leslie



Manuel, Archie
Steele, Thomas







Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Stonehouse, John
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Stones, William
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Strauss, Rt. Hn.G. R. (Vauxhall)
Wainwright, Edwin
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Summerskill, Dr. Shirley
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Swain, Thomas
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Swingler, Stephen
Wallace, George
Winterbottom, R. E.


Symonds, J. B.
Warbey, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Taverne, Dick
Watkins, Tudor
Woof, Robert


Taylor Bernard (Mansfield)
Weitzman, David
Wyatt, Woodrow


Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene
Zilliacus, K.


 Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Whitlock, William



Thornton Ernest
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tinn, James
Wilkms, W. A.
Mr. Sydney Irving and Mr. George Rogers.


Tomney, Frank
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—

The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 300.

Division No. 84.]
AYES
[10.13 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dodds, Norman
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Albu, Austen
Doig, Peter
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Donnelly, Desmond
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)


Aldritt, Walter
Driberg, Tom
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Allen, Scholefied (Crewe)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Howie, W.


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunn, James A.
Hoy, James


Atkinson, Norman
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Bagier Gordon A. T.
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Barnett, Joel
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)


Baxter, William
English, Michael
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)


Beaney, Alan
Ennals, David
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Ensor, David
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Bence, Cyril
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, loan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Jackson, Colin


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fernyhough, E.
Janner, Sir Barnett


Binns, John
Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bishop, E. S.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Blackburn, F.
Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H"b"namp;St.P'cras,S.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Boardman, H.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Boston, T. G.
Floud, Bernard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Foley, Maurice
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Boyden, James
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Ford, Ben
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Bradley, Tom
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Freeson, Reginald
Kelley, Richard


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Kenyon, Clifford


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Garrett, W. E.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Garrow, A.
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Buchanan, Richard
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Lawson, George


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Ginsburg, David
Leadbitter, Ted


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gourlay, Harry
Ledger, Ron


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Carmichael, Neil
Gregory, Arnold
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Carter-Jones Lewis
Grey, Charles
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Chapman, Donald
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James(Llanelly)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, Will (M'Chester, Exchange)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Conlan, Bernard
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Lipton, Marcus


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hale, Leslie
Lomas, Kenneth


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Loughlin, Charles


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Crawshaw, Richard
Hamling, William (Woolwich W.)
McBride, Neil


Cronin John
Hannan, William
McCann, J.


Crosland, Anthony
Harper, Joseph
MacColl, James


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
MacDermot, Niall


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hart, Mrs. Judith
McGuire, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Hattersley, Roy
Mclnnes, James


Darling, George
Hayman, F. H.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hazell, Bert
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
McLeavy, Frank


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Heffer, Eric S.
MacMillan, Malcolm


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
MacPhereon, Malcolm


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Delargy, Hugh
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Dell, Edmund
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Dempsey, James
Holman, Percy
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Diamond, John
Horner, John
Manuel, Archie




Mapp, Charles
Perry, Ernest G.
Summerskill, Dr. Shirley


Marsh, Richard
Popplewell, Ernest
Swain, Thomas


Mason, Roy
Prentice, R. E.
Swingler, Stephen


Maxwell, Robert
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Symonds, J. B.


Mayhew, Christopher
Probert, Arthur
Taverne, Dick


Mellish, Robert
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Mendelson, J. J.
Randall, Harry
Thomas, George (Cardiff, w.)


Mikardo, Ian
Rankin, John
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Millan, Bruce
Redhead, Edward
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rees, Merlyn
Thornton, Ernest


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Reynolds, G. W.
Tinn, James


Molloy, William
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Tomney, Frank


Monslow, Walter
Richard, Ivor
Tuck, Raphael


Morris Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Urwin, T. W.


Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Varley, Eric G.


Morris John (Aberavon)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wainwright, Edwin


Mulley,Rt.Hn.Frederick(SheffieldPk)
Robinson, Rt.Hn. K. (St.Pancras,N.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Murray, Albert
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Neal, Harold
Rose, Paul B.
Wallace, George


Newens, Stan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Warbey, William


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Rowland, Christopher
Watkins, Tudor


Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Sheldon, Robert
Weitzman, David


Norwood, Christopher
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Oakes, Gordon
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Ogden, Eric
Short,Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)
Whitlock, William


O'Malley, Brian
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)
Silkin, John (Deptford)
Wllkins, W. A.


Orbach, Maurice
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Orme, Stanley
silverman, Julius (Aston)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Oswald, Thomas
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Owen, Will
Skeffington, Arthur
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Padley, Walter
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Paget, R. T.
Small, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Palmer, Arthur
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Snow, Julian
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Pargiter, G. A.
Solomons, Henry
Woof, Robert


Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank
Wyatt, Woodrow


Parker, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Parkin, B. T.
Steele, Thomas
Zilliacus, K.


Pavitt, Laurence
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael



Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Stonehouse, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stones, William
Mr. Sydney Irving and Mr. George Rogers.


Pentland, Norman
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)





NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dean, Paul


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Bryan, Paul
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Buck, Antony
Doughty, Charles


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Bullus, Sir Eric
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Astor, John
Burden, F. A.
Drayson, G. B.


Atkins, Humphrey
Butcher, Sir Herbert
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Awdry, Daniel
Buxton, R. C.
Eden, Sir John


Baker, W. H. K.
Campbell, Gordon
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Balniel, Lord
Carlisle, Mark
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Emery, Peter


Barlow, Sir John
Cary, Sir Robert
Errington, Sir Eric


Batsford, Brian
Channon, H. P. G.
Farr, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Chataway, Christopher
Fell, Anthony


Bell, Ronald
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fisher, Nigel


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos amp; Fhm)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)


Berkeley, Humphrey
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Forrest, George


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cole, Norman
Foster, Sir John


Bessell, Peter
Cooke, Robert
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Biffen, John
Cooper, A. E.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.


Bingham, R. M.
Cordle, John
Gammans, Lady


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Corfield, F. V.
Gardner, Edward


Black, Sir Cyril
Costain, A. P.
Gibson-Watt, David


Blaker, Peter
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Crawley, Aidan
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Box, Donald
Crowder, F. P.
Glover, Sir Douglas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Glyn, Sir Richard


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Curran, Charles
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Braine, Bernard
Currie, G. B. H.
Goodhart, Philip


Brewis, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Goodhew, Victor


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dance, James
Gower, Raymond


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Grant, Anthony


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grant-Ferris, R.







Gresham-Cooke, R.
Lubbock, Eric
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Grieve, Percy
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Roots, William


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Royle, Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross amp; Crom'ty)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mackie, George Y. (C'ness amp; S'land)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gurden, Harold
Maclean, Sir Fltzroy
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McMaster, Stanley
Sharples, Richard


Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Shepherd, William


Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Maginnls, John E.
Sinclair, Sir George


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maitland, Sir John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd amp; Chiswick)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marten, Neil
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mathew, Robert
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Maude, Angus
Speir, Sir Rupert


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Stainton, Keith


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mawby, Ray
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stodart, Anthony


Hawkins, Paul
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hay, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Studholme, Sir Henry


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mills Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Steel, D.


Hendry, Forbes
Miscampbell, Norman
Talbot, John E.


Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hiley, Joseph
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
More, Jasper
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Morgan, W. G.
Teeling, Sir William


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Temple, John M.


Hopkins, Alan
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hordern, Peter
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Hornby, Richard
Murton, Oscar
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)


Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Neave, Airey
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Thorpe, Jeremy


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Onslow, Cranley
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Jennings, J. C.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Johnson Smith, G.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Jones, Arthur (Morthants, S.)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Walder, David (High Peak)


Jopling, Michael
Pase, John (Harrow, W.)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, R- Graham (Crosby)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wall, Patrick


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Peel, John
Walters, Dennis


Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Percival, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Kershaw, Anthony
Peyton, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Kilfedder, James A.
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth
Webster, David


Kimball, Marcus
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wells John (Maidstone)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pitt, Dame Edith
Whltelaw, William


Kirk, P.
Pounder, Rafton
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Kitson, Timothy
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wills, Sir George (Bridgwater)


Lagden, Godfrey
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lambton, Viscount
Prior, J. M. L.
Wise, A. R.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pym, Francis
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Woodnutt, Mark


Litchfield, Capt. John
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin
Wylie, N. R.


Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Younger, Hn. George


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas



Longbottom, Charles
Ridsdale, Julian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Loveys, Walter H,
Robson Brown, Sir William
Mr. Martin McLaren and Mr. Ian MacArthur.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House notes with satisfaction the Government's decisions following the Annual

Farm Price Review which in its opinion are fair to both producers and consumers; and welcomes the Government's constructive proposals for the longer term future of the agricultural industry.

MILK (SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS)

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Milk (Special Designations) (Scotland) Order, 1965 (S.I., 1965, No. 253), dated 18th February, 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th February, be annulled.
It would not surprise me if, after so concentrated a day on agriculture, by the end of this Prayer you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, wondered whether any agricultural sustenance was adequate or whether something else produced in Scotland might be needed.
It is not altogether unfitting to end a day of such agricultural activity—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. I should be grateful if hon. Members will listen to the hon. Gentleman addressing the House.

Mr. Stodart: As I was saying, it is not unfitting to discuss one of the best agricultural products for which Scotland is responsible. I give a welcome, if a slightly surprising one, to the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State, whom I am glad to see. She is perhaps the symbol of the reorganisation of the Scottish Office since those splendid days before October 1964, when the same Minister looked after both agriculture and health. Since then there has been a division of responsibility. Although there will be several points which my hon. Friends and I will wish to raise on what I might describe as the production side of this Order, and thus on agricultural matters, I want to say how very important it is to recognise that milk forms one of the meeting points between agriculture and health. I am sure the hon. Lady will agree with me that in order that we may enjoy good health we must be able to get good food.
I should like to make it clear that I very much welcome in principle a Measure designed to improve the quality of one of our staple foods in which Scotland has always excelled. In any case, as the hon. Lady is well aware, I cannot and would not wish to conceal my own interest in proposals which have taken quite a

long time to reach their present stage. I have no reservations, therefore, about the desirability of such details in this Order as milk having to be better cooled on the farm than it has been hitherto, nor about the new temperature control until bottles of milk leave the retailer. Quite obviously, too, it is thoroughly good to go after improved bacterial standards in both the new grades which are introduced by this Order, and to introduce a compositional standard in the case of premium milk.
Having mentioned the premium grade, I should like to say that I think it is a most sensible relaxation of the Regulations which deal with bottling on the farm of production. I shall have a little more to say about that in a moment and also about the completely new provision which has been introduced for the mixing of milk from the morning and evening milkings. Hitherto, of course, that has not been allowed.
I believe that certain consequences may flow from these novelties and amendments, consequences both detailed and general, and that is why I should like to draw the Minister's attention to one or two of them. First, there is the question of the new names, and I must confess that this has exercised me a great deal. I am quite sure that it has not been an easy job to pick the right names. I think the new premium grade and the standard grade were the result of fairly exhaustive consultation with all the interested parties, including the representatives of the consumers.
However, there is one thing which worries me, and it is the fear that what is going to be called standard milk will be suspected by the general public as being of lower quality than the well-known T.T. milk. I am certain that the hon. Lady will agree when I say that it is very important that the consumption of milk among all sections and ages of the community should not drop or be put in any peril of dropping. Therefore, the first question I wish to ask is: what is going to be done to inform the general public that, far from standard milk being inferior to T.T. milk, it will be better?
I was looking at the milk consumption figures for this country and certain European countries. We are not by any means at the top of the league, neither are we at


the bottom. According to the United Nations statistics, we in this country drink, per head per annum, 148 milligrammes of milk. For the benefit of hon. Members, to show how benevolent I am, I have done the conversion, and it is the equivalent of 33 gallons a year, 264 pints or, on average ¾ pint per head of the population per day. That is something to be reasonably pleased about.
It is interesting to look at the pattern of milk consumption in other countries. In certain countries—I pick out Ireland, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg—milk consumption is increasing steadily every year, and in certain other countries, Sweden, Switzerland and Holland, the latter of which is a very progressive milk-producing country, the consumption is going steadily down, as it has been doing remorselessly for the last ten years. We in this country have the slightly unusual pattern of a fairly steady level of consumption. I am quite certain that the Under-Secretary will want to keep it this way, or, if possible, to start an upward turn. I hope, however, that she will be able to say something about the propaganda that will be issued when the new grades come on to the market.
Paragraph 6 of Schedule 1, on page 11 of the Order, states that records are to be retained concerning the sale or production of milk for 12 months
from the date of production or of any transaction to which the records relate.
Latterly, we have had news of a new variety or process which will enable milk to be kept for an almost unlimited period. Presumably, the milk would be stored in a wholesaler's depot. I should have thought that if certain milk could be kept for several years the records that were required to be kept would be fairly formidable.
Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 of the Order mentions—it does no more—the subject of inoculation against brucellosis. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) will have an opportunity of speaking on the Order. I content myself with remarking that, having got the Scottish dairy industry clear of tuberculosis, I hope that the Department of Agriculture, than which there is no more progressive organisation in Government, will as soon as

possible turn its attention to the complete eradication of brucellosis in Scotland.
Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 contains regulations concerning the mixing of morning and evening milk and the breaking of new ground by allowing milk to be designated "premium" even if it is not bottled, as certified milk has to be today, on the farm where it is produced. This will clearly be a help and an economy to the farmer who may have two herds of cows on two different farms, who at present, if he wanted to sell certified milk, must have a bottling unit on each farm. The fact that he will be able to bring his milk by bulk tanker from farm A to farm B and do all the bottling there is a wide relaxation of the existing regulations. What I find a little surprising, and contradictory is paragraph 5(2), which says that after one has brought milk from farm A to the bottling plant at farm B, where one can bottle it and describe it as "premium", one may not describe farm A's milk as farm bottled. One may describe farm B milk as farm bottled because it is bottled on the farm on which it is being produced. Would the hon. Lady say what tortuous thought has gone into this and why milk on every farm which is obviously of such purity and proper standard of health as to be described as "premium" grade is not good enough to be called "farm bottled"?
I should like to ask the hon. Lady a question on paragraph 8 of the same Schedule. No one would deny that to count the number of bacteria in milk is the most reliable method not only of finding out how many there are in it but whether the milk is of a high enough standard, but are there not simpler methods which are every bit as reliable? I find it hard to believe that in these days of scientific advancement one has literally still to count the bacteria. Could the hon. Lady tell me something about the Resazurin test, which I am certain is well known to the hon. Gentleman, judging by the intelligent look on his face, which is a test done with dye? I think I am right in saying that it is used by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board. I should have thought that if this is good enough for the Scottish Board it might well be good enough for us. I absolutely agree that it is essential to maintain a very high reputation for purity, which is one of the tremendous assets not only to farmers but


to consumers in Scotland, but I hope the hon. Lady can assure us that if simpler methods do come along they will be used.
There are only two other points I want to put to the hon. Lady. I think there is a slight confusion on the question of dates. As I understand it, the period at which the selling of certified and T.T. milk must end is 31st December this year and premium milk starts on 1st January next. There is slight confusion about when standard milk may come on to the market. At first sight it looks as if there is an extraordinary hiatus, because according to paragraph (2) of the Explanatory Note—and, of course, that gives the previous references—"standard" is to be the designation from 1st September, 1966. Therefore, if T.T. packs up in December, 1965, what happens in the interim? It may be that it is standard from that date at the same coolness as T.T. and then a different temperature control comes in in September. Perhaps if I am right in my suspicion of this the hon. Lady could confirm that.
Lastly, and I think perhaps most important of all, these standards of purity are not going to be raised for nothing. I am glad to see the look of intelligent agreement on the face of the Minister of State.

The Minister of State Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis): I was thinking that the hon. Gentleman seemed to be doing very well.

Mr. Stodart: It seemed to me that he was recalling nostalgic memories of what used to happen on this side of the House in the last Parliament.
These new standards are not going to be attained at no cost. I suspect that new and more efficient cooling equipment may be needed to bring the coolness of milk down by an extra five degrees, and certainly the operating costs will be higher. What is going to happen? What have the Government in mind about the price that is to be paid for these new standards of milk? Can the hon. Lady inform us on this matter? What is likely to be the differential between the two, premium and standard? Is it going to be the same as the present differential between T.T. and certified?
I should have thought that there was a pretty good case for an increase in the differential, particularly after what we have been listening to today, and because of the Government's abject failure to defend the milk prices. I should have thought that they could not but announce that there was to be an increase in the price once this Order came into operation.
Having said that, may I say that I welcome the principle of this Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will reply to some of the points that I have raised.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. William Baxter: I hesitate to intervene in this debate, but I was most anxious to take part in the previous debate, and if I had been called to do so I would probably have drawn attention to this Order which has a terrific bearing on the subject under review not so long ago.
It is all very well suggesting that producers of milk should get an extra 1d., 2d., or 3d. a gallon, but that would apply to both the large and the small producer, just as this Order does. One has to bear in mind the fact that the small producer—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. This sounds suspiciously like a continuation of the previous debate. The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the grading of milk, which is dealt with in this Order.

Mr. Baxter: The cost of putting this Order into operation by the small producer will be prohibitive. Surely, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am entitled to say that.
I have had some practical experience, as a convener, of a health committee which for some time ran clean milk competitions. We found that it was very difficult to comply with the Orders then in existence. Orders such as this are difficult to put into operation, especially in a small farm. In fact, they are even difficult to understand, and I make bold to say that I am unable fully to understand this Order. Will my hon. Friend tell me what this means? Will she turn to page 4
Part II—Licences to Use Special Designations".
Paragraph 3(2) reads:
Subject to the provisions of this Order a local authority shall on application being made


to them in that behalf grant a licence to the applicant authorising him to use the special designation specified in the application; and such a licence shall be in the appropriate form specified in Schedule 7 to this Order or in a form substantially to the like effect.
I will give way to my hon. Friend if she will give me an explanation of what that paragraph means.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Judith Hart): I often share my hon. Friend's views about the difficulty of understanding incomprehensible legislation and Orders, but on this occasion the only way in which I could explain would be by reading out those words, because I find them quite clear.

Mr. Baxter: Can my hon. Friend explain what is meant by:
shall on application being made to them in that behalf grant a licence to the applicant…
What does that mean?

Mrs. Hart: It means that when somebody applies to the local authority to use one of the designations in paragraph 3(1), the local authority shall grant a licence to the applicant provided that the application has been made in the special form which is specified. In that case he should have no difficulty in getting a licence from the local authority to use one of these designations.

Mr. Baxter: That seems very simple. If that is what it means, why does it not say so? It says nothing of the sort.
In paragraph 2 we read:
The Interpretation Act 1889 applies for the interpretation of this Order as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of Parliament.
Has the small farmer, the milk producer, the man who is retailing a few gallons of milk every morning, to go to this 1889 Act for an interpretation? It seems to me rather ludicrous and fantastic. I invite my hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 11 on page 16:
Where the holder of the licence takes milk from a bulk container and puts it into another bulk container he shall put it into the other container…
My goodness! Where else would he put it if he were not to put it in the container? It goes on:
which shall then be closed as soon as possible after the opening of the first-mentioned container.
I ask my hon. Friend—was this in our manifesto.

Mrs. Hart: We are responsible only for one or two changes in the Order which has been operating, and under which he and his hon. Friends have been operating, quite happily for some years. We are considering the changes in the Order.

Mr. Baxter: I remind my hon. Friend that phraseology is a very important factor and that to be able to understand the Order is very desirable. It is not sufficient to say that we inherited the Order from a previous Administration and have no responsibility for the phraseology which we are presenting to the House. We have 100 per cent. responsibility for the Order being placed before the House. Too much of this is blamed on someone else. We must face up to our responsibilities. It is fundamentally wrong and a contradiction of the better beliefs and qualities of the Labour Party to use phraseology which it is impossible to interpret in a reasonable and sensible way.
Orders and Regulations should not be so difficult to interpret that one need consult a lawyer. I believe that even local authorities will have difficulty in giving a true and sensible interpretation of this Order. It is not for us on this side of the House to enable lawyers and Q.C.s to make fat fees from this sort of thing, not that I am against them receiving fees. We should not make our legislation so difficult to understand by the poor, honest, hard working farmer.
If we do not realise this we will get into difficulties. We should be having 100 per cent. regard for the hard working, small producers and they must be able to understand these things. If we do not have 100 per cent. regard for them we may run into the difficulties that are being faced by Russia about its large collective farms. That country is having to go back to the small farmer to help it get out of its production difficulties. Let us learn from experience, from wherever it comes and irrespective of ideologies.
Our legislation must be capable of interpretation by the ordinary man, for it is he who produces the wherewithall which enables us to lounge back in our nice seats here. He also pays our salaries. It behoves my hon. Friends to simplify the law so that it can be understood by those who operate and act under our Regulations. If I were in the seat of the mighty


I would take the Order back and give its wording further consideration.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: I do not intend to delay the House for long. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) in welcoming the Order. I hope and believe that it will be a great encouragement towards improving quality milk production and I am certain that it will be welcomed by producers and distributors throughout the country. I hope that the Under-Secretary will find my remarks helpful.
My hon. Friend raised the question of the names of the two new grades. I appreciate how difficult it is to select names for any product and I am sure that qualities of milk are no exception. However, I reinforce what my hon. Friend said about the use of the word "standard". Although a perfectly respectable word, I suggest that "standard" has an implication of mediocrity. I am sure that the last thing any of us wish to imply in the standard of milk being produced is mediocrity, but it is a negative sort of word.
This is not merely a matter of academic interest, because we must remember that milk is a product which is competing strongly with many similar products that we drink. It is competing in a vigorous market and is subject to heavy advertising, as are the products which compete with it. Any expert in advertising or marketing will say that it is important that the name of a product should be absolutely right. I suggest that the ideal name here is the one we already have, which is "certified".
Why was it not thought possible to use the description "certified" for what is now to be called the "standard" grade under this Order? It may be very difficult to have second thoughts at this stage, but I hope that the hon. Lady will think about this suggestion seriously. Once the present "certified" grade has ceased to be used, might it not be a good idea to use its name for the standard grade? I would emphasise that the advertising and marketing of milk is extremely important, and if the name is right it will be that much easier.
While on advertising I would mention, incidentally, my hope that proper

consideration will be given to the advertising of these new grades. They will not make the impact they deserve if they are merely advertised under the block description of "milk". I think that producers and distributors would welcome the advertising of these grades under their new names, because at present many of them feel that they pay a levy for advertising which merely advertises the product as a whole while those producing good quality milk very often have to put their own money into advertising it.
Paragraph 12(3) of Schedule 2 says that the container "may" carry the date of production. It is quite right that where the producer is also the distributor this provision should be permissive, and not imperative, but where the producer sells his product to probably a very large distributor who may hold very large stocks all over the country, is it not very important that the day of production should be marked on the container? In that case, is it enough that this provision should be permissive? Problems of stock control of such items are very difficult, and control is very apt to slip into slack ways and disuse. I should have thought that, particularly where large distributors buy their supplies from another source, there was a good case for making it obligatory to have the day of production marked on the container.
The sampling procedure mentioned in the Order seems to be quite all right, with one possible exception. Would it not be right for provision to be made that the licensee most be given the chance to be present when a sample is taken from a bulk tank? I accept that when a sample is taken from a milk bottle on a van, it is neither possible nor really necessary for the licensee, who may suffer if the sample is not up to standard, to be present, because the container in which the sample is placed is sealed. The milk in a bulk tank has been stirred up, the sample taken from below the surface, and so on, as laid down in the Order, the licensee, who may suffer if the sample is said to be below standard, should have the right to be present. That happens almost invariably at the moment, but it would be a safeguard to stipulate that it must be done.
My next point concerns the tribunal. Is it not very important to include in the tribunal a representative of the producers? As the Order stands, the tribunal comprises a chairman and two members, one of whom is to represent the distributors. But it does not have a representative of the producers. I think it important that it should, because if a licensee is threatened with losing his licence it is very likely that the reason why his licence is called in question may, rightly or wrongly, be alleged to be the responsibility, or partly the responsibility, of the producer of the milk. It would be a safeguard to have a representative of producers on the tribunal.
It might be argued that this would make the membership wrong, the number then being four instead of three. If that is a major disadvantage, would it not be possible to alter the terms slightly to provide that there should be one representative who is a producer and distributor? Both interests would then be well covered in the tribunal.
I hope that the Order will be generally welcomed by everyone in the House and also in the trade. All of us should support the aim to have high standards, but the equipment necessary to comply with the Order will be greater in quantity and more expensive to install and maintain than that now possessed by many producers. Dairy farming is a high-cost operation both in men and machinery, and if the scheme is to be successful the Government will have to show much more genuine concern about the poor return and low income which dairy farmers will experience under the present Price Review.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I have first to declare my interest as a producer-retailer and as a member of the producer-retailer association. I should like to pay tribute to the work done by the associations in Scotland in the preparation which has gone into the presentation of this Order. The original work on the Order goes back five or six years and I pay tribute, in particular, to the work of Mr. John Stevenson, who was chairman of the association and who, I know, has done a tremendous amount of work personally in consultation with the Department in

preparing the Order. I hope that the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to join me in this tribute.
I welcome the changes, from two points of view. First, from the point of view of public health, it is clearly desirable that high standards should be maintained; secondly, from the point of view of the producer, these provisions bring standards much more into line with modern methods of production. The Order recognises the demand in Scotland as elsewhere for fresh milk of high quality.
On the last page of the explanatory part of the Order fresh milk is referred to as "raw milk". This is a particularly unfortunate term, because it puts into the mind of the consumer that there is something wrong with its being raw and that milk should be treated. As one who has always drunk "raw", or fresh, milk I think that there is no substitute for it. In areas where fresh milk is available consumers show a preference for it. Rather than use the term "raw milk" it would be preferable to use terms such as "fresh" or "untreated".
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) referred to health standards of dairy cows. It is unfortunate that there has not been included in the Order a provision that herds qualifying for designation as producing this standard of milk should be free from brucellosis. There is a genuine concern in the minds of local health authorities and the general public about this risk of brucellosis, particularly of its being transferred to human beings as undulant fever. The Secretary of State for Scotland, in reply to a Question of mine, said recently that there is not a high incidence of this in Scotland, but the fact that there is any incidence at all when it is something which can be avoided in this modern age is something about which we should be disappointed. If the Secretary of State is not ready at this stage to embark on a policy of eradication it might have been provided in the Order that herds should be vaccinated with S.19 vaccine. The vaccination scheme provided by the Department of Agriculture is optional and is not obligatory on producers of this grade of milk.
Another desirable step for those producing this grade of milk would be


provision for regular clinical examinations of herds by veterinary surgeons. We have an examination once a year in connection with the tuberculin test; but rather more regular supervision of herds would be a good thing. Standards of health among herds producing this grade of milk are high because the standard of management is usually high, but, all the same, it would put at rest a lot of the doubts in people's minds if they knew that regular veterinary examinations were taking place.
I turn now to some of the detailed provisions in the Order. I welcome the provision for central bottling. I think that this may answer the question raised by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), who, unfortunately, is no longer in his place. Producer-retailers have been pressing for the change for some time. Small producers may have had to install special bottling plant in their own premises, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, on a small scale, it may not be economic. The new provision in the Order is a great step forward. Milk may now be bottled centrally and still qualify for the special designation.
Why has it been thought necessary to retain the coliform test when there is a very low bacterial count? It is recognised among dairy farmers and, I think, among certain authorities in public health, the universities and agricultural colleges that, as the bacterial count comes down, there is a risk of the coliform bacteria increasing although, of course, there is no increase in the overall bacterial count. It is now known that the coliform bacteria are not harmful to public health in the way once thought. I should have thought it possible, where the bacterial count was low, to omit he coliform test altogether.
I am somewhat disturbed about the provision governing the temperature at which the milk is to be delivered. The Order provides that the temperature must be maintained at less than 50 degs. F. in the retail containers. Is this practicable? The Scottish Association of Producer-Retailers conducted some experiments in September, 1963. A check was made of deliveries between 6.30 a.m. and 11 a.m. The milk was taken out of the cold store at a temperature of between

40 and 42 degs. F., and it was returned to the dairies at temperatures varying between 48 and 56 degs. F. Forty samples were taken. It is true that only two samples were over 54 degs. and they were off vans which had quite a long mileage to cover, in particular a long return mileage.
This temperature requirement will be difficult to comply with and difficult to enforce. It would have been better to provide for a temperature of 50 degs. F. at the last static storage point; in other words, taking it at the point at which the milk came out of cold store. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that the expense of insulated vans would be prohibitive and their use would probably be impracticable where the milk was being delivered from door to door and the insulated container would be opened and closed many times.
Now, a question about licences. Under the old licence system for special designations, there has been some confusion as to whether a producer who held a "certified" licence and lost it would automatically qualify for a "tuberculin tested" licence. Although the Milk Marketing Board thought that he should automatically qualify, there were many cases in which local authorities did not automatically grant "tuberculin tested" licences.
The question I put to the hon. Lady is this. If a producer holds a "Premium" licence, will he automatically qualify for the "standard" licence as well? If a producer lost a "premium" licence and did not immediately qualify for the standard grade, things could be very awkward.
I am also concerned about the procedure under which the new licences are to be issued. The already existing licences under the special designations Order are to expire on 31st December this year. I should have thought it would have meant a lot of work for local authorities to issue the new grades of licences on a single date. I suggest that it might be more practicable to phase the issue of the new licences between now and 31st December.
Finally, I raise the question of prices. There is a lot of concern among producers in relation to the premium for milk of this quality. At the moment the Government are paying ¼d. a gallon for


high quality milk. This ¼d. a gallon is passed on by the Milk Marketing Board to producer-retailers as an average sum in the calculation of the levy which producer-retailers pay to the Board. On average, the milk of producer-retailers is of higher quality than that of normal producers because the producer-retailer is far more in touch with the needs of the market and the needs of the consumer than other producers are. He is benefiting only to the extent of the average premium whereas his milk is of above-average quality. Would the hon. Lady comment on that?
I hope that when the prices Order is issued for these grades of milk there will be sufficient differential between these grades and the ordinary grades. Prewar the differential was between 2s. and 3s. a gallon. Now it is about 1s. a gallon. It is very costly to produce milk of this quality in terms of equipment, standards of staff and standards of management. Therefore, I hope that a sufficient differential will be offered.
While I welcome the Order, I think that the success of it and of these new grades will depend to no small measure on the kind of premium which is offered when the prices Order is issued.

11.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Judith Hart): A great many detailed points have been raised in the debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) for giving us an opportunity to clarify some of the points, and I am very glad indeed of the welcome which he has given to the Order, particularly since I know how much work he devoted to this subject in the days before October.
I will try to deal with the points as they were raised. First, I take the point about names, because it is of some consequence. People attach a great deal of importance to the names of the foods and products which they use. The first, and main, point to be made is that the words "premium" and "standard" were chosen after a tremendous amount of discussion. I will indicate the channels of discussion by telling the House some of the names which were considered but not selected. For what was previously certified milk the following were considered: sub-certified, specially selected, super test, grade A,

grade I, refrigerated attested, refrigerated certified, milk plus, quality certified and warranted. I could give a similar list for standard, including: untreated, unpasturised, milk, attested, premium, standard and grade B. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) would probably have liked us to choose "milk" because that would have immensely simplified our legislation.

Mr. W. Baxter: "Milk" is quite a descriptive word for the fluid which comes from the cow.

Mrs. Hart: I am sure that next time we are revising the regulations we shall think of this point. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a great deal too much complication in our legislation. I could have wished that the Order was simpler.
I turn to the basis of the Order and shall answer some of the specific points raised. The Order arises from the fact that bovine tuberculosis was eradicated from cattle. This was achieved after a long campaign in which farmers were at first encouraged to eliminate the disease voluntarily. We arrived at a position when the designation "tuberculin tested" ceased to have any significance. That is the background to the Order because it was necessary to reconsider the grading of milk from the point of view of hygiene and safety—in other words, from the point of view of health.
I make it clear that the Order is designed for the ultimate protection of health and hygiene. It is not designed specifically for the milk producer. It tries to reconcile his interests with those of health and hygiene and does it very satisfactorily. It provides for two new grades of untreated milk, standard and premium, and continues the existing grades of treated milk, pasteurised and sterilised.
Questions were asked about prices. I fear I shall have to disappoint hon. Members. I must not enter the subject of milk prices. If I did, I should be in danger of getting out of order, because the subject of prices will be covered by a later order amending the Milk (Great Britain) Order, 1962, which is yet to be laid. It will be before the House fairly soon and any debate on prices will have to be considered in that context. Hon. Members on both sides have had an


opportunity today to consider prices and I assure them that they will not have long to wait before they know something about the prices that will govern milk under this Order.
As is usual, the Order, when it was laid in February, had been drawn up after full consultations with all the interests concerned, but there were some difficulties. That is the answer to the question as to why there has been some time elapsed between the point at which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West left it and now. The proposals originally made were modified considerably because there were various representations and criticisms.
We believe that the Order now meets the needs of the situation as it has presented itself and provides a workable
system. We believe that it will safeguard the consumer while allowing the milk producers and the milk trade reasonable opportunity to make any adjustment they need to make to working conditions when the designations "certified" and "tuberculin tested" are withdrawn at the end of the year.
I was asked about brucellosis. Both sides of the House are agreed that we must all work for complete eradication of brucellosis in cattle in Scotland. But we have found it impossible to make it a condition of premium grade in the Order that the milk should be free from brucellosis. We should like to do so in the interests of hygiene but we are advised that there is as yet no reliable test for freedom from the organisms of brucella. Clearly, until we have a reliable test we cannot impose conditions that imply that the milk could be so tested.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Could not the Government make it obligatory to vaccinate with S.19 vaccine for much the same end in the interim period until a satisfactory test is evolved?

Mrs. Hart: It is not as simple as that. A great many efforts are going on in this direction. If it had been felt that the hon. Member's suggestion was practicable, it would have been done. I should be out of order, again, if I tried to discuss the question of how best we can deduce and eradicate brucellosis, but those consulted advised that it was

impossible to provide a test because there was no reliable one, and a brucellosis general vaccination scheme is ultimately the only answer. What the hon. Gentleman suggests would not he practicable.
I was also asked about Resazurin tests rather than a count of bacteria. This is of great importance. There were two points at issue concerning the bacterial tests, the first being whether the present bacterial count test itself should be replaced or modified by the Resazurin test. Hon. Members who are agriculturists are familiar with these words. I have no doubt that I shall be able to pronounce them by the end of the debate, but at the moment I am stumbling over them. This, of course, is a dye test which measures bacterial activity. The second issue was whether, if there were to be a bacterial count, it should continue to be accompanied by a specific test for the absence of coliform bacteria from a given quantity of bacteria. Coliform bacteria are not in themselves likely to be specially pathogenic, but the question was whether their presence might indicate bad hygiene on the farm.
The original proposals for the dye test, which had already been adopted by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board for the keeping quality payments scheme, as the hon. Gentleman will know, were thought to be simpler and just as reliable as a bacterial count which revealed a bacterial activity acceptable for standard milk. For the level required for premium milk, the bacterial count was thought to be a more reliable test, and the coliform test therefore is not thought to add anything to the indication obtained from a count.
These original proposals were opposed by the local authority associations, the agricultural colleges and the Milk Marketing Board of the Aberdeen and District Area and by bacteriologists from a number of hospitals, universities and research institutes. It was argued that the modified Resazurin test had not been shown to be as good as a bacterial count and as coliform tests at reflecting conditions of milk production and the Resazurin test necessitated a complicated preliminary storage procedure which made it unacceptable for laboratory tests. The coliform test, it was argued, measured dairy hygiene by the only practical test for contamination from sources likely to


contain human faeces and it was the test which 80 per cent. of the unsatisfactory milk failed and its significance was understood by the producers. With all these arguments, it was not felt that the proposals could be maintained against all the weight of this very expert opposition. That is the reason why this test was not included.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) asked a question about cooling to 50 degrees. The answer is simply stated. It is that the producer-retailer associations are very satisfied with the new requirement, and there is no need to assume that it will involve any difficulty.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) asked about the tribunals. The form laid down in the Order has been the basis of the tribunals for many years and there is no evidence that it has given rise to any unfairness; nor have we had any representations that it should be changed. The hon. Member may be theoretically right, but in practice it does not seem to have worried anybody.
I was asked about publicity and how people would know that standard milk was as good as T.T. milk. This is probably something that we can leave to the distributive trade. In all other aspects of publicity of consumer products it is not the producer who makes clear to the consumer precisely what is contained in the product but the retailer and the distributive trade which we know to be only too anxious to sell this milk and which will make the efforts necessary to make clear to the housewife exactly what the facts are.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West what records would be kept of long-keeping milk. I take his point about the need for this. But long-keeping milk, as I think he will agree, is still very much in the pioneering stage and it is very early for considering what may eventually be needed in this direction. However, I take the point and we will keep an eye on this.
The only other question was what happens to standard milk between the coming into operation of the title and September, 1966. The answer is very simple. If anyone wants to cool milk before September, 1966, to 50°F., he can

do so and does not have to do so before that date.
If there is anything I have omitted, and I am sure that there is because I have not had time to go into the matters of great detail which have been raised, I will write to the hon. Members concerned.
May I say finally how much I welcome the Order and the attitude of hon. Members opposite to it? I think that it will go a long way to meet a need in Scotland which we believe we are meeting in the best way possible.

Mr. Stodart: With the leave of the House, may I thank the hon. Lady for her explanations and for dealing with Resazurins so successfully.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ROADS, EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: The subject I wish to raise is one which will be familiar to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It concerns the question of roads in the East Riding of Yorkshire. Some of them are in my constituency. Others are in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and for Howden (Mr. Bryan). 1 believe that if I can curb my verbosity on this occasion either one or both of them will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, before the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport replies. I also understand that the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) is interested, particularly in the road which connects Hull with South Yorkshire and Lancashire.
There are three points that I wish to raise. The first relates to the allocation of grants, the second to safety, and the third to the effect of railway closures on the roads in my constituency between Hull and Hornsea and Hull and Withernsea. I understand that the maintenance and minor improvement is arrived at by the Minister of Transport dividing the national grant between his divisional


road engineers, and the divisional road engineers then allotting the available money to the counties and the county boroughs in their own divisions.
It is the intention of the Ministry of Transport, I believe, to put this grant on the basis of a 10-year programme in order to bring existing roads up to a reasonably modern standard. Whether or not the annual average for the East Riding, which is just under £338,000 for the next 10 years, is adequate—the comparable figure for this year is £319,000—depends on the additional grants which are likely to be available for the major improvements.
Therefore, I come to these major improvement grants. Of those at the bottom and the top of the scale there is little that I need say. As to the grants up to £25,000 I understand that it is the responsibility of the highways committee to choose the schemes to be carried out within the sums which have been made available, and that no specific Ministry approval is necessary. At the other end of the scale—schemes costing more than £500,000—at present the county has no such schemes in view. But when one looks at the middle range—first of all, schemes costing between £25,000 and £100,000, which need the approval of the divisional road engineer—only four of these schemes in the East Riding were given approval between 1960 and 1964. Of the schemes costing more than £100,000 which have been put forward by the East Riding, not one has so far been accepted for execution before 1969.
I have no need to go into the details of the schemes because the right hon. Gentleman no doubt has them all, but it is clear that delay for all the schemes which are going to cost more than £100,000 is not only serious in itself, but it means that no consideration can be given to a number of other improvements which are further down in the queue, many of which are already urgent. If a start is not made very soon with the schemes to which the county council has given the highest priority, I think we shall not see other schemes which are clearly necessary completed in my lifetime.
For instance, the county council has not included in its "top ten"—its 10 highest priorities—the whole stretch of

a road in the north-eastern corner of the county, about which, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, I have already written to his right hon. Friend. This road is narrow, it winds, it is blind and it passes a very busy entrance to one of the Butlin camps. It carries very heavy traffic during the summer months and it has been the scene of a number of road accidents.
The latest available accident figures show that in 1963, on 2,250 miles of roads in the East Riding, just under 3,000 accidents were reported, or an average of about 1·3 accidents per mile. In the general area of Filey and Bridlington, in the north-east of the county, there was about 1 accident per mile, but over the stretch of road which I have in mind, which runs from a place called the Dotterel Inn to the turning to Filey, the accident rate in 1963 was not 1 or 1·3, but 5·8 per mile.
I am, naturally, aware of the strength of the case for giving higher priority to improvements to roads which carry heavy traffic throughout the year than to roads which are busy only during the summer months, but I hope that I have said enough to illustrate the danger—I speak literally about the danger—of pressing that argument too far and of ignoring the seasonally busy roads which happen to contain a high proportion of accident black spots.
One further and most important consideration is the extra burden which is being thrown upon some of these roads by the decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), when Minister of Transport, to consent to certain railway closures. I supported those decisions taken by my right hon. Friend, both during my election campaign and since, because I was convinced that the railways were being speedily and increasingly deserted for the roads. But it was this very conviction that led me, in turn, to be quite certain that substantial road improvements were necessary, because parts of each of the roads between Hull and Hornsea, and also parts of the main link between Hull and Withernsea, were already wholly inadequate last year for the traffic which the railways were not carrying. Now, new demands are to be made upon these already inadequate roads by the conditions imposed when the lines were closed.
Therefore, I should like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to answer three questions. First, will he consider with sympathy the immediate inclusion of improvements proposed by the East Riding County Council in the rolling programme, so that progress can be made with the most urgent of them? Secondly, will be pay particular attention to the frequency of accidents on particular roads, even if they occur mainly during three or four summer months, because it is just as uncomfortable or distressing to be killed or maimed in July as in January?
Thirdly, will the hon. Gentleman agree that the hardship which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey denied would result from the railway closures in my constituency is, indeed, avoidable, but that it can in many cases be avoided only by substantial improvements to existing roads? If he agrees with this possibility of avoiding this hardship by substantial improvements to existing roads, will he, in his reply, undertake to do everything possible to see that the necessary funds are made available so that the county council can start to tackle this work, which has already become very urgent?

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I should just like to add two points to the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend and Parliamentary neighbour the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood). The first one concerns the county town of Beverley, which is an ancient town with many historic buildings. A lot of the traffic which proceeds to the coast in my right hon. Friend's constituency passes through the town, and what is really most important is that a ring road or by-pass should be constructed round the town. I know that this is under consideration, and it may depend in some degree on the new trunk road from Hull to Beverley, but I hope that something will be done about it before the historic beauties of Beverley are destroyed by the ever-increasing traffic.
The second point is the need for better east-west communications. Here again, I think the need is acknowledged by the Minister of Transport. The point I particularly want to make is that it is no good improving east-west communications

unless consideration is given to the scheme for the Humber bridge. It would surely be crazy to build new roads if we were then to find that the new roads are in the wrong places when the Humber Bridge is built. These two schemes, better east-west communications and the Humber Bridge, are, I suggest, not alternatives to each other but are complementary.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. Paul Bryan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) for allowing me two minutes of the time he has used so well. Of course, I very much support what he has said about East Riding roads, and I would use my two minutes just to ask two questions. They are questions about two chronically festering traffic sores in my constituency, Selby Bridge and the traffic jam on the Malton road.
The Selby Bridge problem is something like 100 years old and the only thing I want to do now is to bring it up to date. The last report I have had on this subject was from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor, and that said that the Department had received a report from the consulting engineers who were appointed to carry out a survey of the future trunk road requirements of the East and West Ridings between Hull and the Great North Road. That had been received some time before October. What I should now like to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is whether that report has been considered and what conclusion has been come to about it, because it is on the conclusion which the Ministry comes to that the future of any Selby by-pass must depend.
My second question, which is about the Malton by-pass, is slightly less old. I suppose that this problem is 25 years old, and you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, know more about it even than I do. The reason why it is 25 years old is that each Minister has regarded it, in the words of the last Minister, as relatively unimportant in comparison with roads which take more commercial traffic. What I should just like to underline tonight is that whether or not it was relatively unimportant or comparatively unimportant in the past, that situation has changed, in that the type of traffic has changed.
First of all, whereas in days gone by this was a holiday traffic jam which occurred at weekends, now in the summer we get traffic jams during every single day. There is far more traffic. What I am concerned about is that in addition to holiday traffic we now get quite a bit of commercial traffic, because both Scarborough and Whitby, being fairly busy little ports in their own right, are drawing and attracting commercial traffic, and, indeed, a lot of traffic goes along this road to Hull as well.
Other elements come into this. For instance, there is the Kirby Misperton Zoo, which probably the Minister does not know about, but this, again, is drawing enormous crowds along this road and increasing the traffic. The closing of the Malton-Whitby railway line is another factor which draws just that much more traffic along the road. So we are getting a scene different from and an argument different from the scene and the argument of 25 years ago. It is a different argument now.
The question about the Malton traffic jam is this. What is the earliest date when we may expect to see the completion of the present east arm by-pass scheme, and, secondly, how soon will we see the complete by-pass scheme included in the Government's programme?

11.45 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I thank the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) for his customary courtesy in giving me detailed notice of the points that he wanted to raise. I may not be able to cover all the points which have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, but I assure them that any which I fail to cover will be dealt with in correspondence as soon as possible.
First, I should like to deal with the question of the inclusion of East Riding schemes in the rolling programme of the Ministry of Transport. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, here we are dealing with two programmes. The first is a new one for maintenance and minor improvement of trunk and classified roads. We are now in the course of getting under way a 10-year programme for the allocation of money for this work, and what the right hon. Gentleman said about the

handling of this programme and the money for it is quite correct.
We felt in the Ministry of Transport that there was a need to supplement the work done by the divisional road engineers in allocating funds for this purpose by providing a national programme within which to work. So, in 1964, we got under way a 10-year programme. The East Riding was originally allocated £319,000 for the financial year 1964–65, but I am glad to say that in January of this year we found it possible to allocate an extra £6,000.
In the 10-year programme a sum of £3,377,975 has been approved for the East Riding; that is an average of £337,798 per annum. The benefits of the new programme for the East Riding will be quite clear when I say that this is the highest annual figure for maintenance and minor improvements in any year recently, except for 1963–64.
This is a developing programme of maintenance and minor improvements. I should make it clear that this whole programme is flexible and is designed to take account of how the major improvements programme may alter during its currency.
We have in mind sympathetic consideration for major improvements and development in the East Riding. All schemes put forward by local authorities for inclusion in the road programme are, of course, given the fullest consideration, but the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will appreciate that the whole programme is based on a national assessment of priorities and upon the needs of national planning. Even with the rising road programme which we have inherited—the Government are at the moment committed to an expenditure of more than £1,000 million during the period 1965–70—we still cannot keep pace with the rising amount of traffic.
First, we have to give attention to providing from our trunk road and motorway funds an adequate inter-urban network of through routes, and the problems of urban congestion need a very large slice of the classified road programme. The right hon. Gentleman will know of the work that has already been done to improve the trunk road A.63


westwards from Hull. We are not excluding work on other roads in this part of the country. We can, for example, sometimes fit in a scheme for a road which is used seasonally rather than all round the year, as we are doing on the A.64 at Malton, with the development of the eastern arm of the by-pass. At the moment East Riding schemes cannot be given higher priority, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that we are doing the best we can for the county in relation to the national programme, to which we have to apply very strict criteria.
I turn to the second point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about the Filey-Bridlington Road on which he has carried on considerable correspondence with my right hon. Friend. We agree that the road between Filey and Bridlington is narrow and winding and that the accident rate on it is bad. But the point is that proposals for improvements of this road must come from the Fast and North Riding authorities. Both these authorities, I understand, have schemes for providing virtually a new road, but these schemes are fairly low down on the councils' list of priorities. We have not had any proposals specifially for the improvement of particular parts of the road which are regarded as accident black spots. Indeed, we have no evidence that there are black spots on these roads.
Naturally in assessing the priority of road schemes we take road safety in account to a very considerable extent, and schemes are programmed just as much on account of bad accident records as they are on account of an increasing volume of traffic. But the fact is that roads carrying heavy traffic throughout the year generally have higher accident rates than seasonally-trafficked roads, such as the Filey-Bridlington road. While I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that a fatality or injury is just as distressing in July as it is in January, surely even more distressing are the injuries and accidents which take place in both months. I must say emphatically that at the moment we are dependent upon the priorities which are put forward by the local highway authorities, who are responsible for this road in considering the proposals which we should approve.
Thirdly, I turn to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about the effect of rail closures. We realise that this is a difficult point. I do not wish to press this, but it may be that had a more enlightened policy been operating when these railway lines were being considered for closure, the right hon. Gentleman might not have had to raise the question of the effect of closures. But we inherited this situation, and we have no power to rescind the decisions which were taken.
We have to consider what the consequences have been. I have to say that at present the county council has not brought forward any schemes for the improvement of roads as a consequence of the closures of the railways to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Of course there has been only a comparatively short experience, and we know that the local authority has taken the view that any improvements necessitated by a Government decision should warrant special financial help. At the moment we cannot agree to this. Road improvements benefit all road users and Government grant rates reflect the recognised division of expenditure between local authorities and the Government for the class of road concerned.
It is, therefore, up to the local highway authority to bring forward any schemes it feels are needed, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should try to impress on the council the urgency of drawing our attention to any road improvements which are felt to be necessary as a result of the rail closures, to which the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) gave consent.
I should make it clear that, according to our present information, the roads in this part of the East Riding are adequate on the present criteria on which we operate, but I enter this qualification. It is many years since a traffic census was taken—indeed. I believe over a decade—on these particular roads and we in the Ministry of Transport would certainly look favourably at any proposals which the county council might wish to make for a new traffic count in the area this summer, during the height of the tourist season
We appreciate that this is an important point. The statistical data which we have is obsolescent, dating back many years, and I repeat that we should look


favourably at a proposal by the local highway authority to take a traffic census on the roads to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention so that we would have a better factual picture of the position from which to judge the priority which should be accorded for improvements there.
I will, finally, reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who is only too well aware that my right hon. Friend yesterday received a deputation about the question of the Humber Bridge. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to add anything to the communiqué which was issued on that occasion. We will give very serious consideration to the representations which were made by the Humber Bridge Board and will consult a number of local authorities; the County Councils of Lindsey, the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire, and the Hull City Council as well as the Yorkshire and

Humberside Regional Economic Planning Council.
I realise that very important problems are raised, not only in connection with the crossing of the Humber, but about the whole road network in this part of the world. We are extremely anxious to arrive at a decision on these matters—which will be expensive schemes—as soon as possible. We will, therefore, seriously consider them, as well as the representations made by the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), who raised a matter related to this question about which we have received reports from consulting engineers, and as soon as possible—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve o'clock.